After having provided extensive hyperlinks regarding myriad issues [local, regional, statewide, national and international], it’s desirable to take-pause; certain conclusions appear immutable and, thus, will be amplified only if/when a potential challenge thereto arises. For example, my POTUS-’16 GOP-ticket [Cruz/Walker, in either order] can be modified [flipping-in Pence/Kasich within the gubernatorial-spot], but is unlikely to change appreciably; the rapid consolidation around these leaders would allow for a clear message to be conveyed to the electorate, amplifying whatever Congress passes as its agenda. Indeed, the coordination between House/Senate should provide a model for a cease-fire in the GOP’s civil-war [“Establishment vs. Conservative” or “Moderate vs. TEA-Party Movement”]; the ability to find common-ground without compromising-principles will frame the challenge facing the R-leadership.

A friend advised two articles be circulated [For Bob Beckel: Famous Common People I Have Known, Lester Motley and Ten Reasons Why I Am No Longer a Leftist]; the former contains a quote regarding racism that complements an observation made a few years ago by a neighborhood banker and the latter illustrates how Modern Liberalism has corrupted Classical Liberalism.

Dick Gregory was quoted as differentiating racism in America thusly: “In the South they don’t care how close you get, just as long as you don’t get too big; in the North, they don’t care how big you get, just as long as you don’t get too close.” What the banker told me was that, in the South, there may have been collective prejudice, but individuals were loved; in the North, there may have been no collective prejudice, but individuals were not individually loved.

It may be recalled that, without having consulted him, I’d differentiated the individual Jewish-lib from the faux-leaders of the Jewish Community when probing how and why a malignancy lies at root of the philosophy/ideology of modern-day liberalism; also, recalling a follow-up observation, he had confirmed this empiric differentiation [which served to reassure at least one reader]. Nevertheless, this global phenomenon endangers Jews and the continued survival of Judaism; the culpability of individuals can be determined by gauging the degree to which they choose to disseminate the cancer cells. His observation serves to explain my dismay with the local Federation [despite sporadic involvement therein, such as membership in a now-defunct Israel-oriented committee that had promulgated policies that, alas, the Board hadn’t co-adopted].

Explicating how liberalism has become transformed into a malignant agent will be discussed with him on Friday-p.m.; in my view, this is a subset of the trend towards secular-progressivism that infests the Dems and that yields the emergence of beasts like BHO [and the zoo housed by MSNBC]. All we can do is to educate and hope that people will be able to transcend bowing to the idol of being 100% pro-Choice, fearing the acceptance of religious-based political attitudes, and acquiescing to the deceit promulgated by those who live by the adage “The ends justify the means.”

MIDTERM FALLOUT CONTINUES as, for example, in the FIGHT FOR HER LIFE, LANDRIEU TURNED ON DEMS...WAVED OFF SCHUMER...AND RANTED ON SENATE FLOOR; also, Dems may put Elizabeth Warren in leadership, a prelude for her displacement of Hillary. These phenomena illustrate how desperate people behave, particularly when they shudder to think that the GOP will maturely wield newly-acquired legislative-power; also, they know that the behavior of “moderates” will be effectively monitored by

“conservatives” internally, so that [it is hoped] a strategically-refined posture will be routinely emerging [regardless of the issue].

One wonders whether the ObamaDon’tCare revelations would have provided 56 GOP-senators had they emerged a fortnight ago [NH/Va], but we’ll be able to live with what has been accrued; indeed, the impact thereof [Obamacare's opponents riled by 'stupidity' video; GOP MAY HAVE GRUBER TESTIFY BEFORE CONGRESS; and GOHMERT: PUBLIC SHOULD BE 'BURNING UP THE PHONE LINES' ON OBAMACARE] won’t be diminished by the lefties [KURTZ: 'VIRTUAL BLACKOUT' ON GRUBER COMMENTS SHOWS BIAS] as its features become increasingly apparent [While Obamacare’s proponents continue to insist that the program presents no threat to Americans’ healthcare, new comments from Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber demonstrate that Obamacare was designed to do just that ]. Meanwhile, prospects are excellent that the SCOTUS will trash its Individual Mandate [via subsidies only being available via state-exchange] by June of 2015; over the years, I have consistently argued [including to the leadership of the AAPS during its events over the years in Valley Forge and in Philly] that the fact that its structure is based upon individual-state activities has militated against the ability to invoke the Commerce Clause [requiring an interstate component] to justify its existence.

The task before America is huge, for BHO had politicized the entire Federal government and has imposed pacifism upon the Pentagon [ARMY CONTINUES DRAMATIC DOWNSIZING OF OFFICERS] that will not be protested [GENERALS SHOULD RESIGN TO PROTEST OBAMA'S MISUSE OF MILITARY] because top-leaders have already been purged of anyone who isn’t ideologically aligned with BHO’s leftie-advisors. It is also a characteristic of intransigent ideologues that it won’t matter that THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN; OBAMA’S LAWLESS AMNESTY MUST BE STOPPED legislatively. That fear may explain why Obama Hasn't Made 'Final Decision' on Amnesty Numbers, for what has been leaked is a 'constitutionally odious proposal'; it is unprecedented for any POTUS-power to pardon individuals to be extended to groups of unnamed people.

It is desirable to note what’s happening in Harrisburg, for I would hope that the legislature could use the “sine die” session to pass lotsa bills; noted is the explanation by Gerow as to Why Corbett lost and what lies ahead in Harrisburg, but more telling are the multiple leadership modifications by the GOP that emerged today, for the Conservatives appear to have uprooted the prior labor-tied [failed] policies. {Also, I have opined that Jim Cawley should consider displacing Mike Fitzpatrick in the 8th District.}

Again illustrating the political grip of Penn State upon most-all Pennsylvanians has been release of E-mails showing NCAA and Freeh contact during Penn State probe [even as Penn State denies NCAA emails influenced Freeh investigators], and people can read ***THE EMAILS*** for themselves; it seems the Corman documents indicate the NCAA collaborated in Freeh probe, although the implications of this observation pend.

I cited a Horrifying video from Iran showing a nuclear attack on Israel while blogging on a page that started-out as a PoliticsPA Reader Poll that concluded Josh Shapiro is the Favorite to run against Toomey [instead of Joe Sestak] in 2016.

I started-out generically…

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.

…elaborated when mildly-questioned [by “ABCDEF”]...

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 and The Price of Restraint is Death] 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.

*

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

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 BelievedA Major Democratic Donor [Haim Saban] said Israel Should ‘Bomb The Daylights’ Out Of IranKhamenei Tweeted Plan to End IsraelNetanyahu: Palestinians, Iranian Leader Khamenei Calling for Israel’s DestructionObama’s Latest Outreach to Iran’s Supreme LeaderObama Doubts Iran Nuclear Deal as Oman Talks Go into MondayIran’s Uranium Stockpile Grows before Deadline for Nuclear DealTranscript: Obama on IranIran Nuclear Threat Greater by Fivefold, Says Former Watchdog ChiefObama’s Bet on IranLooming Iran Deal Spells the Empowering of EvilIran Subverting Nuclear Deal, Building Secret Uranium Enrichment MachinesIran Deal: The New ‘Peace in Our Time’Russia to Build Two More Nuclear Reactors in Iran

Still confused?

This led to an increasingly-extensive back-and-forth with a lib-progressive who was stripped-naked [rhetorically] within only a few exchanges:

[from him]

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.

[from me]

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.

[from him (refined) and then from me (indented)]

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].

The following represents another intercalated set of rejoinders; it is notable that, c/w the evasiveness of the defeated debater, he eschews returning to turf where he was defeated, instead constantly trying to probe new territory. The format, again, is to have subsumed his reply within my rejoinder:

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.

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.

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.

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.

[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?]

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.

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.”

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.

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.

{I’m certain many readers would have been able to improve-upon what I wrote, but my goal was to prompt him to express himself maximally, thereby opening himself [and other readers] to maximal re-education.}