December 11, 2011, - 1:44 pm

Newt Gingrich Absolutely Right About Invented “Palestinians” But. . .: The Debate & Grover

By Debbie Schlussel

The outrage over Newt Gingrich’s spot-on comments about the Palestinians being an invented people is enlightening.  At last night’s Republican debate, it was revealing that both Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum took issue with those comments.  It shows that they are either completely ignorant or total cowards.  And that Gingrich is not.  And I can say the same for the fraud, Liz Cheney, who today, on FOX News Sunday took issue with Gingrich over the comments.  While she tries to portray herself as an anti-jihadist hawk today, in the Bush State Department working on Mid-East issues, Liz Cheney was tough on Israel, demanding an end to settlements, and pushing Israel to negotiate, just like the Obama State Department.  She is an ignoramus, too (and in the past year, she also  incorrectly called Afghanistan an Arab country).

There’s This . . .

But Then There’s This . . .

Newt Gingrich’s Close, Decades-Long Friendship w/ Jihad Grover Norquist Trumps Campaign Statements on Israel, Invented “Palestinians”

In fact, if you look at who the “Palestinians” were on the 1926 “Palestinian Chess Team,” they were men with Jewish Hebrew names, like Shlomo and Yitzchak and Yaakov.  If you look at who the members of the Palestinian forces that helped the Allied forces fight the Nazis in World War II, they were also men with Jewish Hebrew names, like Avraham and Ze’ev and Zvi.  I have a large collection of “Palestinian” memorabilia from the late 1800s and early 1900s, and on all of it, the term “Palestinian” referred to Jews, and Jews only.  Not Arabs.  Not Muslims.  No one named Mohammed or Ahmed or Faisal.  There simply were no so-called “Palestinians” who were Arab and/or Muslim in those days because those who call themselves “Palestinian today” were largely nomadic Arabs from Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, and elsewhere looking for work.  And when Jews made the mistake of providing it (instead of doing the work themselves), they came to what is now Israel to take the work and get paid.  Additionally, the majority of those who can even make a quasi-legitimate claim to being “Palestinian” live in the real “Palestine,” Jordan, which refuses to give them power.

The Liz Cheneys and Mitt Romneys of the world are either grossly ignorant of these facts, or, worse, choose deliberately to ignore them.  And I’m glad Gingrich had the courage to double down on this at last night’s debate and speak about how it’s time a Western leader had the courage to point out the real history.  The BS argument now put forth by detractors–that there was no Syria, Jordan, etc. at the time of the Ottoman empire–is hardly an argument, because it’s yet another fact underlining the state of Arabs:  that there was one Arab people artificially created into some Arab states, though they really had no cultural or linguistic differences, and the same goes for the so-called modern “Palestinian” people.

But, before you give him a giant pat on the back for all of this, remember that this wasn’t as much about being courageous as it was about getting Evangelical Christian votes.  Evangelicals–a large part of Iowa Caucuses participation–look suspiciously upon Gingrich for his multiple wives and cheating and for his conversion away from them to Catholicism, not to mention his flip-flops on key core issues of conservatism, such as statist healthcare and global warming.  But they care a lot about Israel–far more, sadly, than most American Jews do.  It’s a key issue for them.  And with Gingrich’s statements, he scored a homerun with them and underscored Mitt Romney’s wishy-washiness on the issue.

And, while Israel is the one issue on which Gingrich has never flip-flopped, can you trust him not to do the same on Israel?  No, you can’t.  And here’s why:

To date, Gingrich maintains his tight friendship with the largest force for Muslims in the Republican Party, Grover Norquist, who supports and took a ton of money from jihadists and front-groups for HAMAS and Al-Qaeda.  Gingrich and Norquist were so close that, when Newt was speaker, Norquist joined him on his daily early morning walk up and down the Capitol Mall.  This is a relationship solidified for decades.  We already saw the damage the relationship between Norquist and Karl Rove caused in bringing jihadists into the Bush White House (including a Bush White House position for Suhail Khan, son of an Al-Qaeda fundraiser who brought Al-Qaeda leader Ayman Al-Zawahiri into the U.S. to raise money at mosques).  Imagine the damage when the President, himself, is a Grover acolyte.

And that’s not even mentioning Gingrich’s tight friendship with Al Sharpton, who isn’t just anti-Israel, but caused two different riots against the Jews–one at which he called Jews, “Zionist interlopers” and caused the deaths of seven people at Freddy’s Fashion Mart, and another at which Sharpton caused the murder of Yankel Rosenbaum, a Chassidic Jew, in Crown Heights.  After 9/11, Al Sharpton–with the help of his publicity-seeking, sell-out court Jew friends, Rabbi Shmuley Boteach and Rabbi Mark Schneier–convinced the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations that he had changed, now understood Israel’s fight against terrorism, and got them to bankroll a first-class trip for Al and his entourage to Israel, complete with suites at the King David Hotel.  On Sharpton’s first day in Israel, when he was scheduled to meet with Jewish victims of the Palestinian terrorist attack at the Dolphinarium Disco, Sharpton canceled that and instead met with terrorist-in-chief Yasser Arafat and alleged “Palestinian victims of terrorism.”  That’s Newt’s friends, with whom he remains so close that he called Sharpton on his MSNBC show to wish him a happy birthday. This is in addition to amnesty for illegal alien Muslims who’ve been here for 25 years, something Newt announced he wants to do. (He spoke of people going to the same church for 25 years, but there’s no way he can exclude people who went the same extremist mosque (repetitive phrase) for 25 years.)

Sometimes–most of the time–people will say anything to get elected. And Newt is no exception. Both he and Michele Bachmann told the Republican Jewish Coalition (an organization that has shamefully embraced the most anti-Israel, anti-Semitic Republicans it can find) that they’d move the U.S. Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. You know who else said that? George H.W. Bush, who went on to make James “F-ck the Jews” Baker his Secretary of State. Bill Clinton, who also promised his White House would have the first kosher kitchen (more BS that never happened). Al Gore. George W. Bush. But none of them moved the embassy, nor will Newt. Only Bachmann might have the courage to actually do it.

Will Newt Gingrich pledge to sever ties with Grover Norquist and Al Sharpton in a Gingrich White House?  No, he won’t.  And that’s why his talk on the Palestinians is just like all talk:  cheap. You have to connect the dots here. And a man who is really tough on the Palestinians and genuinely pro-Israel is not a man who is tight with Norquist and Sharpton helping them empower Muslims and Jew-haters on U.S. soil.

So, will Newt Gingrich in a Gingrich White House be as tough as he says he will on the Palestinians?  Despite my cheering his comments about the issue while I watched last night’s debate, I don’t count on it.  And neither should you.

***

And, for the record, Mitt Romney’s comments in response, last night, telegraphed to us, he definitely won’t be good on the issue, either.  He’s as trustworthy as Gingrich, as in not very.  Yes, both candidates are better than Obama (and I will vote for whichever one is the nominee, though I will still vote for Bachmann in the Michigan Primary), but not by nearly enough.  Plus the U.S. position on record is for a Palestinian state, and unless the new occupant of the White House reverses course, there isn’t a lot of wiggle room to veer away from Obama.  The only person who has been consistent on Israel and the issue of jihad on all fronts is Michele Bachmann, and she missed an opportunity, last night, to say she agrees with Gingrich’s statement (she stayed away from saying so) and pointing out his dangerous friendships with Grover Norquist and Al Sharpton.

Additionally, there is no way to unring the bell and undo the damage that 12 years of Bush-Obama “democracy for the Muslim world BS” did.  That is everlasting and has undone the stability of the Middle East and the safety and security of Israel forever.

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Print Friendly



Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

40 Responses

Debbie I thought MB did really well last nite with her ‘Newt Romney’ line of attack. But she doesn’t seem presidential to me and I thought it was odd that her husband brought his boyfriend to sit with him at the debate. Santorum seems like a righteous, philosemitic Gentile but he just isn’t that good on TV.

A1 on December 11, 2011 at 2:03 pm

    A1:

    It doesn’t matter what the candidates SAY. What mattes is what they DO after they are elected.

    In the mean time, I would like to find a quote from a sitting President saying: “I am a Zionist.”

    If you find one, let me know.

    In the video Deb presented, Newt was asked if he was a Zionist. It would have been nice if he had just answered: “Yes!”

    There is NO Santa Claus on December 12, 2011 at 11:34 pm

      The closest that anyone in the White House has come to being a Zionist is Harry S. Truman, whom I believe could be called a Christian Zionist. We have to agree with Debbie, that the actions speak far louder than the words. Today, the closest Zionist you have near the White House is Joe Biden. See this clip here, where Biden says that he’s a “Zionist.”
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0ZIJdN05QE
      However, as Debbie points out, talk is cheap. Do you walk the walk? That’s what counts.

      Ralph Adamo on January 27, 2012 at 7:13 pm

Thank you for reporting this, Debbie. You are spot on as usual.

I also watched the debate last night. I am very disappointed in Rick Santorum for his answer to Newt’s truth-telling about “the Palestinians” being the invented people that they are.

With Mitt, I’m not as much surprised, but hearing his response still hurt.

JeffE on December 11, 2011 at 2:11 pm

To be fair to the others on the panel, they didn’t disagree with Newt that the Palestinians are an invention, they just said they wouldn’t say it because it only further boils the situation – on that they may or may not be right.

And while it’s good you point out flaws in the repubs, who you going to vote for – the most vile anti Israeli president in our history (excepting maybe only Carter); or a flawed republican?

george on December 11, 2011 at 2:25 pm

    Unlike my dear friend Debbie, for me its NOTA.

    We just don’t have someone who will make us safe at home and abroad and we do deserve better than what’s now on offer and if we don’t demand better, we’ll never get it.

    That’s what I would like.

    NormanF on December 11, 2011 at 3:54 pm

I was very surprised to hear Newt say it, credit where credit is due. I have also resigned myself to the fact we are more than likely facing four more years of Obama.

sharon on December 11, 2011 at 2:26 pm

    Sharon:

    Why are you surprised? He was asked if he was a Zionist. He did not answer: “Yes”

    That is the answer I was looking for. He failed to say it.

    There is NO Santa Claus on December 11, 2011 at 10:04 pm

I’d never vote for an Open Borders Republican, for someone who edited a forthcoming coming book on the climate change scam and someone who is tight with a friend of jihadists.

Gingrich deserves to be given credit for what he about the Palestinians. That said, I don’t expect his Middle East policy to differ much from Obama.

We don’t have ideal choices quite frankly that I’d like to support and moreover, the damage in the Middle East with the emergence of radical anti-American, anti-Western and anti-Israel Islamist totalitarian dictatorships there is now an accomplished fact. There’s no way to unring the bell.

All we can do is try to contain the threat and that is a tall order. I’m disappointed with what I’ve heard from the GOP candidates left in the race and none of them seem to understand the threat America is going to face in the future.

NormanF on December 11, 2011 at 3:51 pm

Weather its made up or not…I just dont see what the big deal is. The fact is we need to fast forward to 2011 and the facts on the ground now. One side calls themselves Israeli’s and the other calls themselves Palestinians. These are the names that we might as well use and focus on getting them back to the table for peace talks. I personally like Mitt Romney more than Newt because even though both flip flop Mitt to me is more electable.

If I had my true choice I would go with Ron Paul – I totally believe that we should leave Israel and Palestine alone and let them come to an agreement rather than forcing one each of them.

George A. on December 11, 2011 at 4:07 pm

The real winners of the debate were the American people when Mitt Romney outed himself.
Michelle scored some points by comparing Newt/Romney. Perry hit it out of the park by calling attention to Obama giving the Iranians our drone.
I think we can confidently admit at this point that the twelth iman has left his hole and is residing in the white house.
I was torn between Santorum and Bachman, last night the favor shifted to Bachman.

Poncho on December 11, 2011 at 4:11 pm

Let’s cut to the chase here. The truly telling question that hasen’t been asked and should be asked is ; DO YOU BELIEVE THE SETTLEMENTS ARE AN OBSTACLE TO PEACE? If they answer yes,waffle or refuse to answer, they are phony friends of Israel.

Santorum can shove it. He previously critized Gingrich as being “naive” about the Middle East when Gingrich promised to move the US embassy to Jerusalem on his first day in office.

Romney’s another GW Bush phony friend of Israel. He said criticism (pressure) of Israel should be private not public. WE HAVE ALWAYS CRITICISED AND PRESSSURED THEM PRIVATELY.

Bachmann wimped out in failing to back Newt, so her “love” of Israel is suspect.

Will Newt keep his promise on the embassy? Probably not. But at least he’s on the record with a firm promise date, and he spoke truth about the phony Palis.

Scott on December 11, 2011 at 4:35 pm

“…there is no way to unring the bell and undo the damage that 12 years of Bush-Obama “democracy for the Muslim world BS” did. That is everlasting and has undone the stability of the Middle East and the safety and security of Israel forever.”

A). DS’ sentence above is so right-on. I see that now. Pity that most of us on the conservative side did not know what DS knew (at the time…and of course, NOW) about the ME. I knew when I read Savage’s book “The Enemy Within” that his prophecy on Iran scared the crap out of me for a good reason. If I had known what DS had known, I would have KNOWN what the ending would be. Valuable lesson. I certinly didn’t want to be a Liberal, but knowledge of what is going on in enemy territory is vital.

B) DS is the *ONLY* Conservative I hear (other than Fred Grandy…and he is hardly remembered…or heard) taking it to Grover Norquist…and quite rightly. I hear Conservatives who are pretty good on most things be totally ignorant regarding what he is about…and they praise him. He and Darrell Issa. I keep waiting for what should be the CW on them to get out. Issa has everyone totally fool and I even hear Conservative pundits saying “the left are looking into his past to sully him…” That is total bullsh, because there is MUCH to delve into his past (look at DS’ awesome articles on him) to bring to the forefront. But the left haven’t taken him on or out.

So yeah, it looks like Michele Bachmann for me at this time. And because of the horror of Obama, it will likely be anyone but Mitt (Primary) and anyone but Obama (for the coda).

Skunky on December 11, 2011 at 4:46 pm

Oh, and I’d like to know the FACTS and any evidence that Michele Bachmann’s hubby is a closet gay. I keep hearing that bandied about in a sarcastic way and I find it offensive because I have seen ZERO proof. The unfounded character assassination is annoying to me.

I believe it to be started by a bunch of huffy gay activists who take umbrage that the Bachmann’s do NOT support gay marriage (and I don’t either!). Nice. The gays remind me of the Moooslims where they have no interest in equal treatment but want SPECIAL and glorified treatment.

So what and where is the proof? The smirky narrative has legs now and I do not think it’s right if there is NO proof.

Skunky on December 11, 2011 at 4:54 pm

    1.) Pray Away the Gay, never sits well with gays, so that automatically sends up red flags.

    2.) How many politicians, on both side of the aisle, have been against gay rights, maritally infidelity and turned out to be gay or having an affair.

    3.) His mannerisms are very stereotypically old school gay. If you didn’t like him you would most likely wouldn’t have a problem with the gay rumors.

    petebone on December 11, 2011 at 10:12 pm

      Hey Bone, I know this isn’t the heaviest of topics so of course you chime in. Especially since your topic of choice these days are all about the Gay.

      In 2011 Gays have come very, very far. Other than Transexuals, Gay Rights topics bore me to tears. They have reached the promised land and now they want to make themselves better than. Like Mooooslims.

      Pray the gay away would most likely not sit well for gays. And I doubt many gays (at least the Liberal kind) would vote for Michele Bachmann since she is a very Conservative Republican. All the sudden the diversity gays love has dried up. Gays only embrace their types of diversity.

      Oh and I do have a problem with UNFOUNDED gay rumours. I mean, if you wanna get technical Bone, your President ZERO has more gay rumours circling him (well, not in the MSM as they cover for him) with Michelle Obama being his ONLY girlfriend of record, that dishy picture of Zero and his Palestinian BFF sitting ohsoclose on the couch when they were roommates and his scandal with Larry Sinclair and his membership at the Chicago Gay Bathhouse and the whispers of when he would frequent it often. And funny, I barely hear a peep on perhaps our first gay President.

      But I have never even seen a picture of her hubby but I hear the Lefty smears and I would just prefer concrete proof that a guy who fathered 5 kids (3 more than ZerObama) is indeed gay. Especially since he is a husband to a Congresswoman running for President and NOT a household name. Except in angry, gay households.

      Skunky on December 11, 2011 at 11:02 pm

        It’s not that hard to find a picture or a video of Bachman’s husband. Try Google.

        Also, the very fact that you would say Obama is more gay, proves my point. Very little is needed these day to start rumors.

        Gays are in the promised land…well that’s so full of holes I’ll let it sink on it’s own.

        petebone on December 12, 2011 at 10:55 am

          That’s concrete? You want me to google A picture of the hubby? No, I want something REAL.

          No, you did not prove your point. I proved your point against YOU. My thesis is that since the Liberals are so quick to smear non-Liberal gays as gays BUT turn a blind eye to the rumours and innuendo about Obama because he’s on the PC side, I am serving YOU up the dishy you like to slobber over.

          And there is far more innuendo about Zero than MB. And as I said, MB is a virtual UNKNOWN but has more gay rumours spread than Obama and his “buddy” Larry Sinclair and his frequenting the gay bath house in Chi-town. Suddenly those type of aspersions are not so legit. Pot. Kettle. Black.

          Skunky on December 12, 2011 at 11:34 am

Actually, Santorum called Perry naive about the Middle East when Perry gave a pro-Israel speech in September.

Scott on December 11, 2011 at 4:59 pm

Correction, Santorum called Perry naive about the Middle East when Perry gave a speech in September

Scott on December 11, 2011 at 5:02 pm

Debbie,

I’ve never seen your blog before, and frankly, I’m a bit stunned by it. You are aware of Newt’s long friendship with both Bibi and more importantly the fact that one of his biggest benefactors is Sheldon Adelson?

More to the point, there were multiple instances of Newt actually having to fight the Israeli embassy during his speakership when he tried to cut funding to the PA.

His “friendship” with Norquist is a result of being part of the Jack Kemp led club for growth coterie.

Just this week Newt answered a question on a phone call with Jewish supporters about the fading support of Bush and the Arabist fever in the state department. He explained that is one of the principle reasons for his desire for John Bolton to head State, to overturn that bureaucracy, and that there would be almost a “litmus” test for appointees to toe the administration line regarding Israel.

Newt’s career has been as the SINGLE most pro Israel politician since the advent of the State of Israel. Criticize almost anything you want about him, but this is simply not one area where there is any grey.

SL: Huh? You are incredibly ignorant. Netanyahu, himself, hasn’t been so great on many Israel-related issues. Newt’s friendship–if it is as strong as you claim, and, frankly, it isn’t as strong as his tight, decades-long friendship with Grover–is irrelevant.

As for Sheldon Adelson, big deal. I know and like Sheldon Adelson, who is a good man and gave to my campaigns for the Michigan House. However, Sheldon Adelson also is the biggest benefactor of AIPAC, which shoved the Oslo agreement down Israel’s throat and opposed state laws embargoing trade with Iran. He is also the biggest benefactor of the RJC, which regularly fetes anti-Semitic, anti-Israel Republicans.

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/3789/beware-of-the-rino-jinos-the-republican-jewish-coalition-panders-to-islamists-israels-americas-enemies/

So, get a frickin’ clue, instead of dropping irrelevant names which don’t change the facts.

As for his friendship with Grover Norquist, it has nothing to do with Jack Kemp, but even if it had, I’m not sure what that has to do with the price of tea in China. It’s poison. Grover is a jihadist and has done more to advance the cause of Islamic terrorists in the GOP than any other person. How sad that you are willing to look the other way on this and make empty, useless excuses. Sorry, but every single area is gray with Newt Gingrich. You never know where he stands on anything. The only thing I know for sure is that he continues to stand with Grover Norquist and Al Sharpton. How pathetic you are to find that okay. DS

Stephen Luftschein on December 11, 2011 at 6:14 pm

    SL, since you have not seen this blog before, you should use DS’ archives to see how she actually feels about Nethanyahu. That may help you understand the first part of your question.

    And I think DS did a great job on this thread itself pointing out the “grey area” on Newt. So it does indeed exsist.

    Skunky on December 11, 2011 at 6:42 pm

Interesting item regarding Cheney. Back around 2004, while at work, I had to make a cold call into Haliburton. It involved knowing if they were outsourcing any IT work…they were. Nope, not to India. TO PAKISTAN. Regarding the GOP sitcom, I only hope that Michelle hangs tough. She seems to have the integrity and because of it, the media have and will (if she sticks it out) come down on her ruthlessly, more than they did on Cain, Palin,and Perry combined.

Not Ovenready on December 11, 2011 at 7:32 pm

Dhimmis are everywhere.

Tanstaafl on December 11, 2011 at 9:09 pm

I’m grateful for Newt’s statement.

I was also grateful for Barack O’Bama’s statement that “Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel and it must remain undivided.” (June 4, 2008 at the AIPAC Policy Conference in which I was in attendance.)

At the end of the day, it’s not what candidates say. It’s what they do. Campaign promises are not binding contracts.

There is no reason to support New Gingrich for President based on his latest statement about “Palestinians”. I don’t care about Grover Norquist or anybody/anything else.

The big picture is whether Newt is part of the Saudi petrochemical lobby. I’ve never seen evidence to suggest that he isn’t. His support of cap-and-trade and “global warming” legislation suggests he is a member of Team-Saudi. If Newt is unwilling to totally unleash America’s vast energy assets (mostly coal) to compete with petroleum, he can’t be the “great friend of Israel” he’d like us to believe. It’s just that simple.

While you weren’t watching (or noticing) Rep. Allan West co-sponsored the Open Fuels Standard Act. If Newt endorses this key piece of legislation, I’ll give him a 2nd look. Until then, he’s just another GOP candidate and I’ll wait-and-see who I vote for when the primaries come to Michigan.

I suppose that if I had a choice between Gingrich and O’Bama, I’d choose Gingrich… but I wouldn’t have any great hopes for improvement in America’s support for Israel based on what he’s said. He’ll have to prove himself in deeds. President O’Bama made glowing promises of support for Israel on the campaign trail and betrayed them within 3 months of taking office. There’s no reason to believe Newt Gingrich will perform any better if he becomes President.

Sincerely,

There is NO Santa Claus (aka TINSC)

P.S. Sorry I posed this in the wrong blog entry. I have re-posted it here.

There is NO Santa Claus on December 11, 2011 at 9:57 pm

Ann Coulter tweeted:

“I also think Romney destroyed Newt on “Palestinians are an invented people.” RT @ kathrynlopez no significant blows to romney or gingrich.”

http://twitter.com/#!/AnnCoulter/status/145710364103946241

No, Ann, he didn’t. But Mitt did show that he would not be good on this issue.

JeffE on December 11, 2011 at 10:41 pm

Ann Coulter is a female Pat Buchanan, a not-so-secret anti-semite (like Ron Paul and Sean Hannity).

I was very disappointed with Santorum. He’s made very strong post-9/11 speeches, but now seems to be going Romney on the issue. Since Santorum clearly has no chance, he must be positioning himself for a cabinet position in a Romney administration.

The Norquist/Aga Khan associations helped to bring down Perry. It’s possible the same could happen to Gingrich.

adam on December 11, 2011 at 11:10 pm

Debbie

Thanks for pointing out that the ‘Palestinian’ label that applied to people pre 1950s was that of Jews, not Arabs/Muslims. I was aware that the term ‘Palestinian’ was something that only came into vogue after the 6 day war. Otherwise, in everything I’ve read from people who wrote about the issue before then – like Albert Einstein – they people are referred to as Arabs. And historically, under Muslim rule, there was never a Palestinian Caliphate/Sultanate/Emirate or whatever it is that would apply. Palestine was first under the various Arab caliphates that followed the Arab conquest of the region, and always ruled from Damascus, Baghdad and Cairo. Jerusalem, for all their fraudulent claims, was (happily) never their capital, and even Saladin ran that province as a part of Syria. Demanding an Arab/Muslim ‘Palestinian’ state is about as legitimate as demanding that Israel, Judea, Samaria and Gaza be annexed to Egypt or Syria – the latter at least has a historical precedence.

On Newt’s friendship w/ Norquist, I don’t blame him for doing that in 1994, when all Norquist was was about tax reform, and he was not Islamized by then. But it is unconscionable that Newt has not chosen to sever ties w/ him since his Islamization. Besides the issue of his friendship w/ Norquist, Newt hasn’t shown any signs that he’d distance the US from the likes of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey and Pakistan, even though these countries are about as venal as Iran, Syria and soon Egypt, Libya and Tunisia. Of course, his candidature doesn’t mean much b’cos he’s proven to be highly compromised even when he was speaker, and coupled w/ his personal issues, is damaged goods and yesterday’s news.

I am disappointed that Bachman didn’t choose to point out his ties w/ Norquist, although I’m not surprised that she chose not to back his statement, given that she’s his opponent. I supported Romney against McCain, but since that election, he’s moved heavily away from the anti-Islamic position, when he was once close to Tancredo’s position (my ideal candidate).

I wonder how much of Liz Cheney’s positions are just from osmosis in the state department, and how much from her father? Dick Cheney had read Bernard Lewis, himself unclear on the subject, and had based his views on it on his writings. But the bigger problem is that there are few republicans not beholden to one group of jihadis – the GCC sheikhs & emirs in Saudi Arabia, Qatar & Kuwait, while there are few democrats who are not in bed w/ Hizbullah, Hamas, Iran and Syria.

Too bad none of the candidates up there know anything about Islam like Tom Tancredo did.

Infidel on December 11, 2011 at 11:31 pm

With all of these candidates and Obama, ladies and gentlemen I introduce you to the next Weimar Republic

Confederate South on December 11, 2011 at 11:55 pm

Thanks for your coverage of this debate question. I was going to email about the same points.

My governor of Texas, Rick Perry, again laughably called himself “The Outsider.” It’s a big joke here in Austin on Jeff Ward’s radio show on KLBJ.

Michele Bachmann did OK, but she could have done better without her references to Herman Cain.

Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich. I’m not happy with either. We had tea parties for this choice?

Barry Popik on December 12, 2011 at 12:50 am

Newt Gingrich certainly knows that he’s speaking the truth about the “Palestinians” being invented. (Note that I correctly put the quotation marks around the created term “Palestinians,” not the word invented.)

In fact, the year the term and the “people” were invented was 1967. This is historical fact, and any true Middle East scholar will confirm that this is true. Of course, the media never goes to seek the counsel of scholars, but instead goes to some ignorant Muslim extremists for their predictable viewpoint.

However, the real reason that Gingrich happens to be willing to tell the truth in this particular instance is strictly political. He’s seeking the approval of the Christian evangelicals and their affiliates. Ironically, he isn’t doing this to curry favor with Jewish people, as the sad fact is that a surprising number of Jewish Americans do not have as strong a feeling for Israel as the Christian evangelicals groups do. And I’m not speaking of those sick puppies like the “Jews for Helen Thomas” crowd, but just straight, middle-of-the-road liberal Jews. For example, Christians United for Israel, has been telling this truth about the so-called “Palestinians” for years, and they firmly believe that Israel should NOT be giving up “land for peace” because they correctly view that as a phony deal. (Hey, even atheist Pat Condell is saying that Israel shouldn’t give up and land, particularly not Jerusalem.)

Nonetheless, I’m glad that Gingrich tried to score some political points. Unfortunately, it will largely fall on deaf ears, as the media won’t tell you the truth about the “Palestinians” and how they were invented. The truth, like many other important things in life, doesn’t come easy, and you have to work to find it. The media has taken upon itself to be the supreme mythmaker, not reporter; and certainly not investigator. Good searching to you all.

Ralph Adamo on December 12, 2011 at 1:29 am

I’m afraid Sharon is right. Obama will likely win re-election because the Republicans, once more, have become a ‘me-too’ party.

The reaction to Gingrich’s comments reminds us once again that democracy is fragile, and depends, in the last analysis in ensuring that knowledge and wisdom, as Reinhold Niebuhr said many years ago, are extended to the ‘educated’ part of the population, the media, the academy, those playing an international role such as businesspeople, politicians, and the citizenry as a whole. Unfortunately, as the hysterical response to Gingrich shows us,none of these segments of society seem capable of playing such a role.

Instead, they, themselves are abridging democracy by calling Gingrich a racist, and any other epithet that they think can fit him,however loosely. While the ‘intellectuals’ who helped create such an atmosphere, and who initiated the attacks on Gingrich, are congratulating themselves on their cleverness, most, but not all of them, miss the point that they are helping to create a society that is more authoritarian than democratic, and which seems to be descending to a point where revealed truth will overcome reason completely.

Equally disturbing is the fact that support for the ‘Palestinians’ has become part of the dogma of political correctness, and challenging the legitimacy of the so-called Palestinians has become as evil as being accused of racism, being accused, whether truthfully or not, of harassing women, or of being unsympathetic to the ‘poor’. Unfortunately, Gingrich, an opportunist to the core, does not have the wherewithal to meet this challenge. But this is what is required of a leader in our country today.

Little Al on December 12, 2011 at 8:43 am

Sad to see the Republican candidates come up short in so
many ways. Still, I would vote for any one of them, even
Ron Paul, against O bam bam. It’s amazing that a guy so
incompetent at administration, but effective as a campaigner
will be reelected. We really have been dumbed down and are
not learning from our mistakes.

Daniel K on December 12, 2011 at 9:27 am

Well, I was elated at hearing Newt “tell it like it is” and I hope more and more Americans wake up to the real agenda most Arab Muslims have.

Dunno if Newt can overcome all the negatives the dems will hang on him. Dunno if Mitt can articulate a message that resonates with moderates well enough to overcome the Obama Media Machine. IMO, it’s down to those two and the billion or so dollars Obama will throw into his campaign will be a daunting obstacle to overcome for either candidate.

Beating Obama is Job One and undoing the mess he’s made is a close second. Taking a harder line on Arab Muslims is fourth on my list – behind taking a harder line on the China/”fair” vs “free” trade issue.

GC on December 12, 2011 at 10:29 am

I’m tired of hearing people tell me that Gingrich is so smart. So what if Gingrich is smart, so are a lot of other people who have screwed up this country. Jimmy Carter is smart, and look what that lib did to us. Gore may be smart, he claims to have invented the internet… and the list goes on and on.

I trust Gingrich about as far as I can throw him and Pelosi on that love seat they were on when they made that green commercial garbage.

Jarhead on December 12, 2011 at 10:58 am

Newt Gingrich’s comment about the Palestinians being an “invented people” has been beneficial for this reason: It clarifies. It lets us know just where the rest of the GOP candidates stand.

Gingrich, it’s true, tries to have it both ways. He professes support for Israel while getting cozy with any number of its enemies here. Still, he’s smoked his Republican rivals out of their respective lairs, forcing them to respond. And it’s clear that with the possible exception of Bachmann (who is unqualified to serve as President), none of the candidates can be fully trusted.

Seek on December 12, 2011 at 12:34 pm

In my view, Gingrich went out very far on a limb, perhaps unnecessarily far, in his statement about the “Palestinians.” This statement took real courage! Perhaps it was the outcome of political calculation as well. I don’t see that Newt’s reported friendship with Norquist and Sharpton are really in play here. Give Newt the credit his statement deserves!

Charles on December 12, 2011 at 3:10 pm

Skunky,

I guess I didn’t make my point very clearly. Here it is laid simply. It is easy to start rumors and gossip. It’s easy to look at one picture of Marcus Bachman and say he looks gay so he is gay. Bingo! A rumor is started. Both sides do it, don’t pretend they don’t.

You saying that there is more proof that Obama is gay proves the point about how easy it is to start rumors.

Also, you said you hadn’t see a picture or video of MB, so I suggested you google him. I wasn’t offering that up as evidence that he’s gay. Kinda thought you could figure that out.

petebone on December 12, 2011 at 8:55 pm

Right now the biggest threat to Israel comes from the asshole whose name I can never spell right in Iran ( At least Adolf changed his).
Jet fighters are obsolete as a defense in t missle dominated attack from Iran. The scud missles were children’s toys in comparison, most never exploded, some Israelis I know claim they did not even carry explosive warheads.
Forget the Palistenians for now. Waiting for another Nasser, or Achmed in Egypt, or another daddy Assad is pure suicide.
I to am perplexed by self limiting Jewish leadership here in the good old USA. Sounds a lot like those Jewish advisors who did not want to rock the boat for FDR when it already leaked that Jews were being systematically rounded up and gassed in Germany. This Ahamed,or Achmed fuck is making no bones about his intentions that include thousands of missles, and also according to Mad Max up to 40,000 suicide bombers that are probably being admitted into ultra liberal Canada as I write.

Ron Wolf on December 12, 2011 at 9:39 pm

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field