On the topic of Tom's article, one really must wonder why Charen even bothers with this sort of foolery given that the Jews in the Zionist Entity can evidently control the US Government directly, and without deigning to accept the aid of American Jews:

>Rice shame-faced by Bush over UN Gaza vote: Olmert

4 hours ago
JERUSALEM (AFP) — US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was left shame-faced after President George W. Bush ordered her to abstain in a key UN vote on the Gaza war, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said on Monday.

"She was left shamed. A resolution that she prepared and arranged, and in the end she did not vote in favour," Olmert said in a speech in the southern town of Ashkelon.

The UN Security Council passed a resolution last Thursday calling for an immediate ceasefire in the three-week-old conflict in the Gaza Strip and an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza where hundreds have been killed.

Fourteen of the council's 15 members voted in favour of the resolution, which was later rejected by both Israel and Hamas.
The United States, Israel's main ally, had initially been expected to voted in line with the other 14 but Rice later became the sole abstention.

"In the night between Thursday and Friday, when the secretary of state wanted to lead the vote on a ceasefire at the Security Council, we did not want her to vote in favour," Olmert said

"I said 'get me President Bush on the phone'. They said he was in the middle of giving a speech in Philadelphia. I said I didn't care. 'I need to talk to him now'. He got off the podium and spoke to me.

"I told him the United States could not vote in favour. It cannot vote in favour of such a resolution. He immediately called the secretary of state and told her not to vote in favour."
Bush has consistently placed the blame for the conflict on Hamas, telling reporters on Monday that while he wanted to see a "sustainable ceasefire" in Gaza, it was up to Hamas to choose to end its rocket fire on Israel.<

Again, you contradict yourself. Let me clarify what you keep dancing around. The US has no, zero, nada, zilcho national interests in Israel. We should remain neutral when dealing with Israel and its allies or enemies.

And I think you overstate the number of Jews in the US but let's go with your 10 million number. You wrote, "We live in a democracy and 10 million Jews consider support for Israel one of the most -if not the most- important issue." That 290 million other Americans whose interests take a secondary role in your calculus might want to have a say.

Furthermore, your idea of keeping Israel's leaders on a short leash will exacerbate the Arab world's view of the US as the attack dog of Israel. Sever all ties other than basic diplomatic relations with Israel now. We lose nothing in the process and we could then remeasure the Arab world's opinion of us. Frankly, I am looking to avoid another 9/11 which Obama, sorry Osama, reminded us he perpetrated as payback for our lopsided relations with that barren sand pit at the eastern end of the Mediterranean.

For example, many on this site and others rightfully support the Serbs and Russians over their Islamic and non-Islamic enemies. But they don't advocate the US militarily intervene on behalf of Russia or Serbia.

Would it be legitimate for someone to morally support Israel over Palestine in the current war while at the same time oppose foreign intervention? Nick Griffin of the BNP appears to do that.

Which is precisely why it's perfectly logical to ask American Jews where their loyalties really lie. If The Pope still ruled north central Italy to ask such a question of Catholics would be appropriate. So, why at the start of the third millenium CE does posing a similar question about Israel automatically make one an anti-Semite?

So yes, we need to support Israels right to exist but as Dr. Fleming states we need to control the leaders and keep them on a firm leash. But lets not kid ourselves that our Israeli alliance and the billions of aid benefit the USA - we're doing it to keep the Jews happy. I can't thing of any other ethnic group in the USA that demands the USA support a foreign country to the extent American Jews do.

Your comments contradict themselves. You write, "As for Israel. Yes we should support her..." Then later you write, "Israel adds nothing to our security or wealth." So which is it? Support something that gives you no benefit? Or support something that some ethnic groups (you cite Jews) "care for...deeply." With that mindset we would be supporting every race, clan, and tribe on the planet, with the exception of the Palestinians since they would still be verboten in polite, pro-Israel American chit chat (sorry for the redundancy).

Neutrality is our only hope. Otherwise don't complain on the next 9/11.

As for Israel. Yes, we should support her since 10 million Jews in this country pay taxes and care for her - deeply. But let's not not be silly, from a honest view of US interests, Israel had always been Dead-weight. That's why George C. Marshall was against our recognizing it in 1948. And if tomorrow all the Jews in Israel were to post a "Gone out of Business" sign and move to Miami Beach and Brooklyn the USA would be much better off. Israel adds nothing to our security or wealth - just the opposite - but to say so is impolite and dangerous.

An arrogant Judge there came so close to banning Home Schooling, which is of course a practice favored far more by whites due to their tending to care more about their children than the other racial groups you'll find in an area.

I can understand why the parents fought the ruling (it was overturned), it's a hell of a thing to leave a place in what amounts to exile...

But at the same time, there's just no future for half-way decent white people over there. So why delay the inevitable?

And if Jerry Brown manages to force gay marriage on them, against the twice expressed will of the voters, the social conservative ethnobase of white people in California will probably enter into an even quicker collapse than it would've otherwise.

Whittling the white population down to the barren, as the hispanics expand.

The next Governer almost has to be Villaraigosa, right?