Latest Threads
Latest
Greatest Threads
Greatest
Lobby
Lobby
Journals
Journals
Search
Search
Options
Options
Help
Help
Login
Login
Home » Discuss » Journals » ChristianDemocrat1 Donate to DU
Advertise Liberally! The Liberal Blog Advertising Network
Advertise on more than 70 progressive blogs!
ChristianDemocrat1's Journal
If Obama loses to McCain it would mean that there are a still some bad enough baggage in the Democratic Party set of ideas that prevent the formation of a winning coalition of voters to bring victory.

I would suggest that those losing positions revolve around:

-Abortion
-Affinity towards homosexuals and their issues.
-Hostility or indifference towards evangelical Christians & their issues.


Where Kerry lost it in 2004 was towards the end of the first (or second) debate. A last minute question was plucked from the internet and offered up to both candidates. Kerry's answer showed a complete lack of understanding of how to communicate to Christian voters. It showed that Kerry did not even have someone in his circle who could have coached him on handling such a basic question in a manner palatable to the 40 million voting, evangelic Christians. Kerry only had coaching to pander to the 4 million homossexuals.

The question was:
"Do you believe God created certain people to be homosexuals or is it a learned behavior?"

Kerry went on to tell how God created certain people to be homosexuals. I said right then that he just lost the election and he didn't even know it. That was the turning point in his momentum. It was a downhill struggle from there on in.

The correct response would not have offended the sensitivities of 40 million voting evangelical Christians to appease 4 million homosexuals.
The correct response would have been this:

"Whether or not God created certain people to be homosexuals is a matter presently debated amongst leaders in religion and science and philosophy. But as someone sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States, a country founded on the self-evident truths that all people are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, and that Governments are formed among them to secure those rights. As President I will work to secure the Creator-endowed rights of everyone in America the same - whether religious or not, regardless of ethnicity, nation of origin, gender or sexual orientation."

Though this answer might not have scored raving reviews by either side of the issue, it would not have unreasonably offended, either. Again, the fact that Kerry could not but fall straight into the trap demonstrated openly to the 40 million Christian voters that the Democrats still have not bothered themselves to understand them. And Democrats were largely denied their vote and support. A similar sensitivity to the sensitivities of the 40 million voting evangelicals regarding abortion issues is also in order.

I hope that Democrats are humbleminded enough to learn from their mistake and return to Jimmy Carter's successful appeal to evangelical Christian voters again. It is important to counter the Republican culture of death via warmaking with a genuine culture of life among the Democrats.
Read entry | Discuss (5 comments)
I am all for Hillary being an inner circle counselor towards developing a universal health care plan,
(if I were ever president, I would certainly have her as a personal advisor among others - she's smart),

but I just cannot bring myself to donate more to Obama until I am sure Hillary is NOT his VP choice.


Does anyone else out there feel the same way?
Not trying to cause problems at a time when we all need each other,
and I really want to see the massive fundraising really begin in earnest for Obama,
but I just want to see his pick for VP before I open the financial floodgates to confirm him.
Anyone else out there feel this way?
Is there a feeling that right now is just the low tide before the big ca$h wave hits?
Read entry | Discuss (33 comments) | Recommend (+1 votes)
Posted by ChristianDemocrat1 in Political Videos
Sat Jun 07th 2008, 04:11 PM

 
Ok, this is going to piss some (many?) of you off now.

After the Gulf War I finished up, and a few years went by of Saddam making fools of us by moving mechanized units to the borders with Kuwait from time to time, causing the US to alarm and mount a reaction, jerking us around and around, many lamented the action of Bush Sr. to cease hostilities once the 4 Objectives were met that the Coalition had rallied around.

Over the course of time, different Monday morning quarterback types would step forward to second guess that decision to cease hostilities saying, "We should have gone all the way to Bagdad and taken out Saddam Hussein and the Bathist regime." If I recall correctly, I have a distinct memory of even Al Gore making such statements. And Hillary Clinton as well. So bad was the goading by Democrats in later years that Bush Sr. came to express open regret for not doing so, for not "going all the way to Bagdad and taking out Saddam and the Bathist regime -- to finishing the job." To be honest, I hold many Democratics & their leaders responsible for beating down Bush Sr. on this matter so much that it became a matter of restoring family pride for Bush Jr. to "finish the job" as Democratic hecklers would say. The seed to do Iraq was planted within Bush Jr. during the Clinton years -- by derisive democrats Monday morning quarterbacking Gulf War I and heckling Bush Sr. for his "failure to finish the job." Now, maybe that wasn't you saying such things but I sure recall a good number of those less educated, working-class whites that Hillary attracted saying such things --- to deride the Repubs. Repubs answered with Bush & Cheney's invasion of Iraq at first opportunity.

So, if you want to hear my gut-honest opinion about this whole thing, (and many of you won't):
I consider the bulk of Democratic leadership just as responsible for the present mess in Iraq as anybody else, including the Bush & Cheneys of the world.

THIS is why Barack Obama stands head & shoulders above all these guys. Obama and Byrd and those few others who stood up against giving authorization to Bush Jr. to rape Iraq are the only one's free from responsibility on the matter.

I'll just go ahead and aggravate some more, while I'm on the subject, just to piss off whoever is stll not offended by the post:
We cannot just pull out of Iraq. We raped her, now we got to marry her. Its bad enough that we raped Iraq as we have, but to go ahead and just leave the crime scene, just leave her there writhing in the street, now is even worse. Nah, Uncle Sam raped Iraq, so now he's got her, whether she's a bitch or not. Just like Colin Powell used to say about why, during Gulf War I, they wanted to limit the action, "Well, there is like the Pottery Barn rule: 'You break it, you buy it.' "

There is probably not a family in Iraq that has not been traumatized for a generation or more as a result of our, America's, actions. There is probably not a family in Iraq that has not lost a mother or father or sister or brother or girlfriend or husband; or an eye or a foot; or a family home or a career or a job or a hospital or a school; or has someone who has lost their mind or soul. And who can count the families that are now dysfunctional for a generation or more due to post-traumatic stress disorder? Or children growing up in such an environment we are responsible for creating?

You raped her,
now you got to marry her,
bitch or not.

America has an obligation to Iraq that may take a generation or more to fulfill;
like the 50+ years in the Philippines, Germany, Japan, Korea, etc.

So, though Barack wisely dodged guilt by opposing the raping of Iraq from the start,
Barack would unwisely heap guilt upon himself by having America just walk away.


"We must be as careful to leave Iraq as we were reckless to enter her." ~ Barack Obama

A careful, and caring, withdrawal from Iraq may take a long, long, expensive time -- kind of like a divorce: child care payments, alimony, assets, etc., etc.


Read entry | Discuss (0 comments)
I invite you to present a measure of logical presentation of facts. You have not shown nor hinted how organizing human labors by way of corporations causes loss of life and jobs. The opposite is readily recognised by most. Many communities in America and the world over are looking for corporations to come (back) into their communities for the jobs and way of life they have a reputation for bringing with them. Didn't you listen to any of the speeches on the economy by the leading democratic candidates? Did you hear nothing from them during their stay in Indiana? How Indiana jobs (and their way of life) dried up when corporations moved out to other places?

I think what you really mean to say is "unregulated corporations cause problems..."
But we may as well go ahead and say "unregulated anything causes problems..."

And that is the whole point of Government, to regulate human acitivity to maximize the good and minimize the bad.
And the whole point of Politics is to regulate Government. So we are involved with a good thing.
Read entry | Discuss (0 comments) | Recommend (0 votes)
the good living standards that you refer to are extremely unequally distributed
The fact that the pie is not equally distributed is not contested. I simply remind that the pie is bigger than ever and, as a result, even the lower 50% are better off than their ancestors, better off than they would have been without the organizing power by which humans have made the earth provide more bountifully for a population that is 6.7 times what it was 100 years ago. Corporations have had a positive part to play in producing that bounty by which all benefit, albeit, disproportionately.

No doubt corporations have resulted in technological advances that have improved living standards, and that many people share in those improved living standards.
See, you openly agree with the gyst of what I am saying. You have come to acknowledge the good along with the bad, the pro's along with the cons. Good for you! The lower 50% are living better than ever!

But we have a situation in the world now where 2% of the population owns 50% of the wealth and where the bottom 50% of the world's population owns 1% of the world's wealth. So the improved standards of living you speak of probably don't apply to half the people in the world.
Not so. Even after the wealthiest 2% take their 50% cut off the top, there is still more than ever before for the remaining 98% to divide up, so much so that even the bottom 50% are experiencing a population explosion. Their numbers are growing precisely because: they have more food than ages past, they live longer lives than ages past, because they have better health care than ages past, they work less hours, less strenuously than ages past. So what about the upper 2%?? If you just tune them out and focus on what the bottom 50% have now compared to what they had in ages past, they are doing better than ever. Comparing the upper 2% to the bottom 50% is more an issue of greed v envy. I am simply saying to consider moving past that greed v envy mindset for a moment to be thankful that the bottom 50% has more now than they did in ages past. Some of this ongoing prospering of the bottom 50% is attributable to the benefits of organizing the labors of massive sums of people via corporations.

I have nothing against someone getting rich from honest productive activities which benefit everyone. But my point is that way too much of the world's wealth is confiscated through imperialistic activities -- in other words, violence and theft -- rather than created through honest productive activities.
I agree. I hate violence and theft. And I hate greed and envy. Any student of history can see that that farther back into history you go, the more per capita violence, theft, greed, envy, racism, slavery, genocide and cannibalism you get, (not just figurative). I just also point out that, despite the acknowledged improvements needed to the status quo, there is still a lot of good that has come of it. And we should be thankful for what we presently have while we work towards something better. We do not need to demonize our imperfect parents in order to succeed them. We do not need to demonize the present in order to work for a better future.


I do not agree that our major challenge is to overcome nature.
You seem to think it a small, marginal thing the advance of modern agriculture that produces harvests from exhausted soils that are 13 times more bountiful than harvests from virgin soil. Many, many studious people had to work pretty hard to overcome Nature to achieve that. Same could be said of modern medicines and vaccines and treatments, advances in hygiene and food distribution and housing. It should be remembered that hot & cold, disease & famine, hostile beasts & rugged terrain are all part of Nature. Many places that were largely threatening & uninhabitable by Nature are now places of thriving development because of modern energy, transportation, construction, heating and air conditioning, pest & disease control. Studious, hard-working people are overcoming the resistance of Nature itself to provide for greater life, 6.7 times the human population of just 100 years ago! Better fed, better clothed, better health, longer lives, better housing, more education, leisure, travel, etc., has resulted for the common person of the bottom 50% than all of history past. Just because these studious people lay low and quietly get the hard work done does not mean that the crooks are more influencial. Despite the crooks in high places and low, the common people the world over are gradually climbing to higher standards of living. The exceptions to this global trend are either regional or temporary. And the massive organizing of human effort via corporations is part of that success. There are a lot of good, studious, hard-working people whose labors are organized most effectively via corporations, despite some crooks that skim off a cut.

That's just the other side of this whole thing. One side of the coin does not have to be the enemy of the other side. Its just reality: coins have two legitimate sides. So do many issues. The peaceful, productive, non-radical progressive will keep that in mind.




Read entry | Discuss (1 comments)
Posted by ChristianDemocrat1 in Political Videos
Mon May 26th 2008, 11:43 PM

 
and it turns up the heat on American foreign policy to give up its hypocrisy regarding nuclear proliferation and Israel.

These are both very worthwhile.

Because you cannot have progress in the peace process in the Middle East without fair, principled brokering.
And you cannot have fair, principled brokering without addressing & correcting the issue of America's shielding Israel for the very things it demonizes others for, in this context, the acquisition & deployment of nuclear weapons.

Until this skunk is dealt with, the whole place stinks too bad to get any work done.

You want peace in the Middle East? It involves justice (fairness, even-handed application of just principles).
Read entry | Discuss (0 comments)
One would think that if America really did not want the proliferation of nukes
that America would not favor a country who refused to sign the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
One would think that being a NPT signatory would bring a country closer to America's heart
if America really had non-proliferation of nukes at heart.

America's shielding of Israel over this issue undermines America's moral authority (respect) on matters regarding nuclear weapons.
Such hypocrisy makes it evident that the summation of American nuclear policies is to permit nukes to her friends while attempting to keep nukes from her opponents ---> all this wrapped in the thinly vieled argument that we don't want nukes to spread. But its so thinly vieled that everyone but the blind see it the naked truth of it -- and it ain't pretty. Little wonder so much of the world turns away with disgust from American foreign policy. There's only so far you can go bribing friends and bombing eniemies before the money runs out. And then, having neither means nor dignity, only those who pity you will help you -- on their terms.

Is it not better that America return to the moral high ground now rather than later?

No nuclear proliferation.
No military aid to non-signatories to the nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty.

No more double-standard for Israel.
Read entry | Discuss (0 comments)
Who should be Barak Obama's Vice-President?


A) Hillary Clinton - as a woman, she can win more McCain supporters.

B) John Edwards - as another young man w/ little national experience, he can increase the sense of youthful hope.

C) John Conyers - as another liberal, black congressman from neighbor state, he broadens the ticket's appeal.

D) Howard Dean - w/ feisty wit & national networking, he's the perfect "gentleman's pitbull" against the pundits & repugs.

E) Fill-in-the-Blank - ________________________________________.


How about nominees for Obama's Cabinet?
A) Secretary of State - Webb? Biden?
B) Secretary of Defense - Clark?
C) Attorney General - Edwards? (What Bobby was to John?)
D) Secretary of Labor - Robert Reich?
E) Secretary of Education - Sebellius?
F) Surgeon General
G) Secretary of Treasury
H) Secretary of Transportation
etc....

just ideas.... and hopefully a little unifying vision-building....

Keep in mind that, in an anti-Repug year like this, anyone presently in office should readily be able to be replaced with a Democrat.
Read entry | Discuss (42 comments) | Recommend (0 votes)
Posted by ChristianDemocrat1 in Latest Breaking News
Fri May 09th 2008, 10:53 PM
LeftishBrit:
As a Brit, do you get to register with the Democratic Party in America?

Didn't think so.

So, please, as a British guest enjoying political discussion amongst members of the American Democratic Party about America's proper response to world affairs, please refrain from patronizing me or my fellow Americans for appealing to our traditions of Freedom, Democracy & Civil Rights for which American families have sacrificed, fought and died to secure and defend since our nation's independance from Britain.

And right, Bush went on a personal tour of Iraq reminding of America's principles of Freedom, Democracy, and Civil Rights, politely asking that all countries of the region be held to the same standard without hypocrisy, reminding that "All Men are Created Equal" and the inalienable First Amendment Right with which all people are endowed. NOT!

As I recall it, Bush preached up "Axis of Evil" speaches about 3 countries that are no where close to doing what Israel does with WMD's & NUKES since 40 years ago in the early 1960's. Bush then ordered up a "Shock & Awe" pre-emptive invasion of Iraq that has left us all shocked, broke, embarrassed and faltering in diplomatic respect. This is no at all like my politely advocating that America return to her world-respected roots of promoting the same principles of Freedom, Democracy & Civil Rights for which people have come from all over the world since 1776.

You are way out of line.
Read entry | Discuss (1 comments)
Posted by ChristianDemocrat1 in Latest Breaking News
Fri May 09th 2008, 10:16 PM
Thank you both. I am glad to be a part of it here. I actually joined back in 2004 but forgot my log ins and joined again.
-------------------------------------------------------


DOUBLE-STANDARD
It is ludicrous to call it alarming when an NPT signatory seeks nuclear technology
but somehow not alarming when an NPT non-signatory deploys nuclear weapons.



It should be very alarming that one of the very first projects that a newly formed government undertakes is to secretly develop and deploy nuclear weapons. It is entirely alarming that Israel's government which was formally declared in 1948 should informally deploy nuclear weapons by 1968. And not a peep of official alarm from America. But if, over 30 years AFTER said deployment of nuclear weapons by Israel, another country in the region seeks nuclear technology it is cause for "Axis of Evil" speeches, fear-mongering and saber rattling if not and pre-emptive bombing like they did over Syria and Iraq. DOUBLE-STANDARD.

NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION IS DANGEROUS, WHETHER BY SIGNATORIES OR NON-SIGNATORIES.
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION IS ESPECIALLY DANGEROUS BY NON-SIGNATORIES WHO DEPLOY NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN SECRET.


America's failure to alarm over Israel's undeclared nukes is a DOUBLE-STANDARD. There is absolutely no justification for supporting Israel's secret nuclear ambitions, ambitions from Israel's very founding - and these are not just ambitions, they are ambitions long fulfilled.

DEMAND A NON-BIASED, NO-TOLERANCE POLICY FOR NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN THE MIDDLE EAST. NO DOUBLE-STANDARD FREE PASS FOR ISRAEL.

Peace, not Apartheid.
Stop the Double-Standard favoritism for Jewish immigrants & their descendants over the native Semitic peoples.
Might does not make right.
Read entry | Discuss (0 comments)
Posted by ChristianDemocrat1 in Political Videos
Fri May 09th 2008, 02:44 PM

 
"I am an Obama supporter and an anti-Zionist (not an anti-Semite - two very different things) and find it sad that all American candidates play along with the kowtowing to Israel."

Its curious how the CNN banner running along the bottom says, "60th Anniversary of Jewish State" while Obama talks about them sharing America's values of Civil Rights. I mean, how would it be taken if it read, "60th Anniversary of White State" or "60th Anniversary of Black State" or if you want to define in terms of religion instead of "race", "60th Anniversary of Catholic State" or "60th Anniversary of Mormon State" or "60th Anniversary of Islamic State".

How in the world is it possible to honestly state that the Declaration of Independence's "All Men are Created Equal" equates to using the powers of Government to favor one ethic-cultural group over another as in a "Jewish State" ??

And how on earth can it honestly be said that the First Civil Right (First Amendment) is somehow harmonious with Israel's (Zionist) practice of using the powers of Government to respect one establishment of Religion over another by creating a "Jewish State" ??


And how can any real democracy-loving person ever honestly say that its perfectly "democratic" to use the powers of Government to make sure that a certain ethnic-cultural group is always the majority that therefore rules? How can any real democracy-loving person honestly say that it is perfectly democratic to use the powers of Government to maintain adherents of a certain religious tradition (& their descendents) as the majority that therefore rules?? Ludicrous!! The American Civil Rights tradition stands opposed from the very beginning to such practices of using Government Powers to favor one ethnic or religious group over others to maintain it as the ruling majority. America's founders saw such absurd practice as the root cause of centuries of race & religious wars in the Old World and refused to seed them into the New Republic, the New World Order of Government of ALL the People, by ALL the People and for ALL the People in EQUAL measure -- not favoring one particular ethnic or religious over the rest. THIS is the "FREEDOM," THIS is the "DEMOCRACY," THESE are the "CIVIL RIGHTS BY WHICH ALL MEN ARE ENDOWED BY THEIR CREATOR" for which generations of Americans have fought to secure and defend here and around the world. And they believed fervently in their hearts that it is the basis for PEACE among people. Early deviation from these Principles helped incite the blood-filled Civil War.

Why should it be of any import to the American Federal Government that a Foreign State be established and maintained whose primary reason for being is to provide a homeland for the practitioners & descendants of a specific religious tradition? Or for a particular cultural group? As unrighteous as it is to employ the powers of Government to set apart the States of Virginia & Maryland as a Roman Catholic states, or the State of Georgia as a Southern Baptist State, or the State of Utah as a Mormon State, or New Jersey as a Jewish State, so is unrighteous to employ the powers of Government to maintain a Jewish State anywhere else. As racist as it is to employ the powers of Government to ensure Black rule in Louisiana, or enforce White rule in Mississippi, or Hispanic rule in Texas, it is racist to use the powers of Government to enforce a Jewish rule, whether inside America or abroad. A moral principle is either right or wrong everywhere just the same or it is hypocrisy. Just as undemocratic as it would be for the State Government of New Jersey to employ the powers of Government to establish & maintain therein a Jewish majority, so it is equally undemocratic for the government of Israel to employ the powers of Government to establish and maintain for itself a Jewish ruling majority.

Whether based upon religious or racial criteria, it is inherently contrary to America's Principles of Freedom, Democracy & Civil Rights to employ the powers of Government to ensure a Jewish majority, here or abroad.

DOES NOT SUCH HYPOCRISY DISCREDIT & UNDERMINE AMERICA'S CALLING TO PROPAGATE FREEDOM, DEMOCRACY & CIVIL RIGHTS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD?

Peace, Not Apartheid.

Israel's Zionism (Jewish Supremacy) is incompatible with America's traditions of Freedom, Democracy & Civil Rights
and is the root cause to the ceaseless race & religious warring in that region ever since it was introduced. Remove that bitter root and plant genuine, Government-secured Freedom of Religion & Racial-Cultural Equality in its place and you will raise up a harvest of PEACE in that place that has only known race & religous war these last 60 years. While I enjoy the best of Jewish culture every place it is found, I reject using the powers of Government to enforce Jewish Supremacy over any land.
Read entry | Discuss (0 comments)
Posted by ChristianDemocrat1 in Latest Breaking News
Tue May 06th 2008, 01:48 AM
The Israelis and their neighbors can learn to live together in peace the same way various ethnic and religious groups do here in America --- by truly taking to heart our principles of Freedom, Democracy and Civil Rights. That's why America preaches them to the world because these are the principles by which nations are blessed with peace & prosperity as such luminaries as Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King proclaimed. But so long as Israel & her neighbors are coddled into clinging to the Old World notions of employing the powers of Government to respect one race or establishment of religion over another, they will be at each others' throats with race and religious wars of the sort they used to have in Europe and presently experience in and around Israel. These places need to adopt America's principles of Religious Freedom, Civil Rights and Government of ALL the people, by ALL the people, for ALL the people rather than of, by & for the government-favored people-group. This is how racial & religious strife is avoided. And it is old hat, pretty clear to America's founders over 200 years ago. Whether or not you would call people who believe this "fundies" tells us more about you than it does them.

The keys to Arab-Israeli peace are true Religious Freedom and Civil Rights that genuinely produce Government of ALL the People, by ALL the People, and for ALL the People who live there -- not just for those descended from practitioners of Rabbinic Judaism or some other cultural or religious group. We all know these things. There is no reason for Israel to be "the Devil's Triangle" for morality around which normal moral principles inexplicably go haywire & disappear.
Read entry | Discuss (2 comments)
Posted by ChristianDemocrat1 in Latest Breaking News
Mon May 05th 2008, 11:56 PM
... and that leaves us with nothing but bribes & military force by which to persuade other countries to align with our national interests. Our economy, which depends upon the goodwill of other nations to buy our products and loan us money, cannot support the bribe-or-bomb approach to world leadership much longer. We either return to the moral high ground to influence through commanding respect or we quietly retreat with each economic setback.
Read entry | Discuss (0 comments)
Posted by ChristianDemocrat1 in Latest Breaking News
Mon May 05th 2008, 11:23 PM
"Iran Rejects Nuclear Inspections Unless Israel Allows Them"

This is completely reasonable. And there is nothing "anti-Israel" about it; it is simply fair. Its tiring to hear the classic Zionist shout-down that it is somehow "anti-Israel" (or "anti-Semitic") for Israel to be held to the same standards as everyone else. Justice requires this.

And it is baloney to say that it is a worrisome disturbance for a Treaty signatory to seek nuclear technology but not worrisome for a non-signatory (Israel) to already possess the same.

And it is baloney to say that Israel has a right to nuclear weapons because "When you are a country that is the size of Rhode Island, and you are surrounded in layers by countries that pray for your destruction. They have been attacked by many of those countries, and by terrorist organizations that are proxies for heads of state." By applying that faulty standard, the Palestinians have a right to nuclear weapons for their abject victimization by Israeli tyranny that surrounds & destroys their homes at will. Again, by that same faulty reasoning, Iran qualifies for the right to nuclear weapons for being surrounded by layers of American-Israeli threats to "totally obliterate them," especially since both have long ago developed the ability to do so.

And if the world is safer when Iran is inspected for nuclear weapons development,
then the world is safer when Israel is inspected for nuclear weapons development, too.

For the truly religious: Is not your God more interested in life, justice (fairness), mercy, peace & love than a certain people-group controlling a certain spot on the planet?

ON THE SUBJECT OF DOUBLE-STANDARDS
For the political: Why should it be of any import to the American Federal Government that a Foreign State be established and maintained whose primary reason for being is to provide a homeland for the practitioners & descendants of a specific religious tradition? Or for a particular cultural group? As unrighteous as it is to employ the powers of Government to set apart the States of Virginia & Maryland as a Roman Catholic states, or the State of Georgia as a Southern Baptist State, or the State of Utah as a Mormon State, or New Jersey as a Jewish State, so is unrighteous to employ the powers of Government to maintain a Jewish State anywhere else. As racist as it is to employ the powers of Government to ensure Black rule in Louisiana, or enforce White rule in Mississippi, or Hispanic rule in Texas, it is racist to use the powers of Government to enforce a Jewish rule, whether inside America or abroad. A moral principle is either right or wrong everywhere just the same or it is hypocrisy. Just as undemocratic as it would be for the State Government of New Jersey to employ the powers of Government to establish & maintain therein a Jewish majority, so it is equally undemocratic for the government of Israel to employ the powers of Government to establish and maintain for itself a Jewish ruling majority.

Whether based upon religious or racial criteria, it is inherently contrary to America's Principles of Freedom, Democracy & Civil Rights to employ the powers of Government to ensure a Jewish majority, here or abroad.

DOES NOT SUCH HYPOCRISY DISCREDIT & UNDERMINE AMERICA'S CALLING TO PROPAGATE FREEDOM, DEMOCRACY & CIVIL RIGHTS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD?

Peace, Not Apartheid.
Read entry | Discuss (2 comments)
Greatest Threads
The ten most recommended threads posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums in the last 24 hours.
Visitor Tools
Use the tools below to keep track of updates to this Journal.
Random Journal
Random Journal
 
Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals  |  Campaigns  |  Links  |  Store  |  Donate
About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.