mullah cimoc say mrs. stretchface (in waziristan everyone to using this name for mrs. pelosi- in pastu: “nipo-hard” meaning face stretch like snake)just be so the liar. also the sick brain and cruel.

mrs. stretchface never to really opposing war crime. it just to lie to get the vote money. in true stretchface full time israeli agent agent, entire career just to service him master in tel aviv. aipac, jdl, adl, all to commanding each action by mrs. stretch face.

An interesting thing happened today. The Israeli ambassador to Turkey apologized to the Turkish government for the fact that a U.S. congressional committee voted to acknowledge the Armenian Genocide. The implication here is that Israel had both the power and responsibility to prevent the House committee from voting yes but had unaccountably failed to do so. Does Israel really feel it has such control over the U.S. Congress that it needs to apologize to other countries when the American Congress willfully goes its own way?

My mistress wants me to leave my wife and take her on a trip around the world.

My wife wants me to buy a new house and take a second honeymoon.

What should I do?

People have to make choices sooner or later.

Jews are no exception. As an American with only one country I don't want people with a higher loyalty to a foreign country living here much less infiltrating my government.

It just doesn't work…has never worked thruout history and will never work…no matter how to try to tell yourself it's "your right" or that there is nothing wrong with it…that Israel and the Jews "are an exception."

This notion that Jews can live in one country and be loyal to another or be their own nation within a nation as the old carnard goes has been the bane of their existence..and yet?….here we go again.

Do they ever learn?

Another way of saying it: There's nothing wrong with a judge having a personal sympathy toward one side or another of a potential case, but we expect him to have the decency to recuse himself when the situation comes up. Deferring the use of his power is fundamentally a matter of showing respect for his fellow citizens.

Of course, in NYC everybody except Native Americans has dual loyalty.

Just at the moment that the Turkish army is about to invade Iraqi Kurdistan and terminally destabilize whatever might be left of Iraq, the Senate passes this "Armenian genocide" resolution.

Between the Jewish, Cuban and now the Armenian (???), Lobbies. US Foreign policy is collapsing. Quelle bordelle!

The consequences of that falsely simplistic math was that by virtue of being a Catholic, one would be disqualified from serving in public office let alone president.

Then of course there was Father Drinan, Congressman from Brookline, who consistently and highly ethically (and although a Father, was independant of the papacy's political preferences – that sounded nice didn't it) opposed the war in Vietnam.

It describes that the content of each CASE is what is critical, not the suspicion.

In the case of a presidential administration, the staff of the president is NOT elected, and serves in accountability to the president's chain of command. The history of presidential advisors includes a gamut of immigrants at secretarial positions, each of whom could have been and were accused of dual loyalty.

Dan is right. They were wrong, not seditious.

In this case, the question isn't whether "someone" should be prohibited from accusing another of dual loyalty. The question is whether you can ethically.

Your prospective misrepresentation of your brother's comments here is very upsetting.

Its also upsetting to hear you misuse the term "evidence". You don't propose evidence, you propose suspicion.

The difference between the two words is glaring. Scarily.

Evidence is oriented to a proof. You could possibly prove that Wormser or "the neo-conservatives" (a name-call that YOU use often in some inference of equivalence to "Jewish"), but to actually prove that logically, you would have to confidently eliminate ALL other feasible explanations or inferences.

What Dan did in quoting Fleisher, was to take the word "proof" from your tether. You can't prove anything, because your contention neglected to consider alternative explanations seriously.

"Its got to be this way. What other explanation is there?" (without investigating other explanations).

I've done bad things with money, even other people's money. The consequences of me losing money on wishful investments, is some loss to myself, but more significantly some loss to my family. The consequences of me losing other individuals' money is worse, some loss to my employer, some threat to my co-employees' jobs.

For you Phil, your words are your investment. And, in this case you are risking others peoples' credibility, and with the obvious potential of fascist generalization and demonization.

You are not criticizing specific arguments, citing alternative conclusions from the same set of facts (always admittedly with incomplete knowledge). You are taking the low road on this one.

What lessons do we derive from history? Do we repeat the past mistakes of Vietnam? (We are, and more). Do we repeat the past mistakes of American populism morphing into the more limited "populist" logic of the Ku Klux Klan? (We are.)

"Thought crime".

*What the accusers have is circumstantial…*

Phil at least makes some distinction between suspicion and evidence, but goes ahead to confidently conclude dual loyalty elsewhere.