Rand Paul distancing himself from his father on Israel

Labels: »
People didn't make much out of Obama's connections either.  I'm not convinced yet.
 I'm glad he is speaking out. maybe he can convince his dad.  I'm reposting the whole thing from Carl of Israel Matzav because I think he is making some valid points.  I never thought I would say that about a Paul. 
 
G W Bush was very different then his father. I disagreed with him and didn't like how he enabled so called "Moderates" and friended the Saudis, but I would not be surprised to see that Rand is not Ron. My father for example to this day is still a Leftist. Different generation and different experiences, but perhaps Paul needs to prove himself a bit before the Jewish community approves him.

Rand's been all over Alex Jones' network saying he's going to "broaden" his message to win votes. The only difference between him and his father is that he says he won't criticize Israel if they defend themselves. No other differences as far as I can tell.  Stormfront has been active in Kentucky's Paul campaign, passing out anti-Israel flyers at events, and no one on the Paul side has batted an eye. 

Rand Paul, who is seeking the Republican nomination for the Senate from Kentucky, has issued a statement entitled The United States Special Relationship with Israel, in which he takes positions on Israel that are far from those advocated by his father, Texas Congressman Ron Paul.
Israel and the United States have a special relationship. With our shared history and common values, the American and Israeli people have formed a bond that unites us across the many thousands of miles between our countries and calls us to work together towards peace and prosperity for our countries.
The free trade agreement that has existed, and been subsequently strengthened, between our countries since 1985 is a tremendous mutual benefit. As a United States Senator, I would work against the growing protectionist sentiment in our country and defend free trade with Israel.
I would never vote to place trade restrictions on Israel, and I would filibuster any attempts to place sanctions on Israel or tariffs on any Israeli goods.
The issue of Palestine is incredibly difficult and complex. The entire world wishes for peace in the region, but any arrangement or treaty must come from Israel, when she is ready and when her conditions have been met.
I strongly object to the arrogant approach of Obama administration, itself a continuation of the failures of past U.S. administrations, as they push Israel to make security concessions behind thinly veiled threats.
Only Israel can decide what is in her security interest, not America and certainly not the United Nations. Friends do not coerce friends to trade land for peace, or to give up the vital security interests of their people.
As a United States Senator, I would never vote to condemn Israel for defending herself.
Whether it is fighting Hezbollah in Lebanon, combating Hamas-linked terrorists in Gaza or dealing with potential nuclear threats in the Persian Gulf, Israeli military actions are completely up to the leaders and military of Israel, and Israel alone.
It is not the place of outsiders to meddle or pass judgment or to use our power or relationship to force Israel to go against her own interest for the sake of “peace.”
Peace is a laudable goal. But it is just that – a goal. It is not an end at any cost.
It makes no sense to me that the United States provides Arab countries hostile to Israel with $12 billion in annual financial and military aid. Many of the weapons that Israel would face in a Middle Eastern conflict would have come directly from our government. I find this appalling. In the Senate, I would strive to eliminate all aid to countries that threaten Israel.
Finally, Iran has become increasingly bellicose towards Israel. Thankfully, Israel has one of the bravest, most elite military forces in the world. I would never vote to prevent Israel from taking any military action her leaders felt necessary to end any Iranian threat.
Just as the United States would not follow the will of another country in the face of our national security, we shall not limit the options of Israel in this area.
Finally, I believe the United States should increase the pressure on Iran. I would mandate that all publicly managed investment funds divest from Iran immediately.
We should not be subsidizing any company that does business with Iran, and we should not allow U.S. companies or those with funds from U.S. taxpayers to enrich Iran through its national energy program. I would fight to end all subsides to American corporations that do business with Iran, including so-called renewable energy companies that work through Brazil to provide support to Iran and empower its dictators dangerous nuclear saber rattling.
Is this for real? Well George W. Bush was a lot less hostile to Israel than his father George H.W. Bush. There's more comparing the views of Ron and Rand Paul here.
You will recall that Sarah Palin has been criticized in many Jewish quarters (including by me) because her PAC has contributed more money to Rand Paul than to anyone else.
Sarah Palin’s endorsement of Rand Paul has always troubled me.
Newsreal asks Palin to Re-Think That Rand Paul (Anti-Israel, Pro-Kokesh) Endorsement!.
Newsreal explores the meaning of a statement Rand Paul recently gave AIPAC in which he basically says he won’t tell Israel what to do and will vocally support her right of self defense. What is left unsaid is whether he will come to Israel’s aid if she is in trouble or whether he will resupply Israel in times of war. We also know that he is against intervention which means that Israel would be on her own.
On the one hand it is great that he wouldn’t push us around but he also wouldn’t help us if we needed it.
Contrary to Rand Paul, Palin believes that the US and Israel are allies and that the US must support her allies.
Palin has said that she supports Paul because she likes his federalist policies. But what about his non-intervention policy.
Supporters of Israel and our War on Terror will be shocked to see the following video showing Rand Paul with anti-war activist Adam Kokesh in Paul’s clinic office, discussing their “movement” and their campaigns. Kokesh is a congressional candidate in New Mexico. He was one of two men who interrupted John McCain’s acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, holding up a sign that read “McCain Votes Against Vets,” and punctuating the nominee’s expression of gratitude to George Bush for his post 9-11 defense of the country with disruptive shouting.
Kokesh organized a rally during which held up shoes, promising to “shoe Bush out of office,” and expressed his support of the Iraqi journalist who threw his shoe at President Bush as a sign of disrespect. At another rally during which participants carried upside down U.S. flags, Kokesh called for the impeachment of George Bush and Dick Cheney. At a “9-11 Truth” rally, Kokesh encouraged troops to cease their service to the country.
Why does it matter if Rand Paul is Israel’s ally? Because seven million Israeli citizens will be murdered by their Islamic enemies if we withdraw our financial and military support. To continue to live, the people of Israel do not need our “well-wishing” and “benign example,” but concrete support. If we elect enough Rand Pauls and Adam Kokeshes, Israel’s extinction will be assured. Yes, Rand will vote to cut off aid to Israel’s enemies, but also aid to Israel.



Walter Block of the Mises Institute authored an open letter to Jews arguing that foreign aid was bad for Israel and that under Ron Paul, the US would no longer try to control Israel's foreign policy. And promoted Jews for Ron Paul, an organization that turned out to be a fraud. More curiously, Block claimed that Ron Paul might actually triple foreign aid to Israel's enemies, which would destroy them.

But the first problem with the Pauls is not Israel. It's America. The problem is that they support Islamic terrorists because they've identified with the entire worldview of the far left and far right, which claims that the US government is run by a vast conspiracy, and that Muslim terrorists are just blowback as a result of our foreign policy. Which is a fancy way of saying that they believe that if they can overthrow the "American Empire", everything with Islam will be hunky dory.

Rand Paul has spoken in those terms before on the Alex Jones show. Like his father, he identifies more with Al Queda and Iran, than with the US.

While some of Ron Paul's Jewish supporters tried to claim that he would leave Israel, because he believes in respecting the sovereignty of other countries, in fact he attacked Israel for going after its kidnapped soldiers, something that was not taking place inside US borders. Essentially Paul was making the same argument then that Obama is making today, that Israel's actions affect the US, which gives him the right to demand that Israel stop defending itself.

...in favor of keeping terrorists locked up, when back in 09, it was a different story
...Furthermore as others are pointing out, Rand Paul has endorsed Adam Kokesh, which means getting in bed with Code Pink, a radical left wing org tied to Obama and Hamas of all things.

....Bubba has gone into great detail on Adam Kokesh in an open letter.

Keith Ellison's Muslim Brotherhood Support :: The Investigative Project on Terrorism

Labels: » » » » » »
He is a fairly entrenched incumbent in a district drawn favorably for his party. That fact has helped U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) raise more than $650,000 in his bid for a third term in Congress. That amount includes $173,000 in political action committee contributions from interests ranging from organized labor to health insurers and trial lawyers.
Among individual donors, Ellison – the first Muslim elected to Congress – enjoys strong support from Muslim Americans throughout the country, campaign finance records show.
That's understandable. Tucked in among those contributions, however, are a handful of donors with a history of Muslim Brotherhood connections. For example, Ellison accepted $950 in contributions from Jamal Barzinji and another $1,000 from Hisham Al-Talib. And in late March, the Investigative Projec t on Terrorism has learned, Ellison attended a private fundraiser at the northern Virginia home of a man who led a group tied to the Muslim Brotherhood.
Barzinji and Al-Talib have served as vice presidents at the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT), a Northern Virginia think-tank federal authorities suspect was part of a terrorist financing network. In addition, a previous FBI investigation concluded that Barzinji and Al-Talib were among U.S. leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood when they came here as students.
The Brotherhood, which also is called the Ikhwan, is an Egyptian-based religious/political movement that seeks to establish Islamic law as "the basis controlling the affairs of state and society." Documents from an FBI investigation from the late 1980s show Barzinji included among "members and leaders of the IKHWAN." He was the secretary general for the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) at that time.
ISNA was founded by Muslim Brotherhood members in the United States, records from that FBI probe and other investigations show.
Investigative records and trial exhibits also show that the organizations donors Barzinji and Al-Talib have been involved in and have helped finance criminal organizations including the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development and a think tank that served as refuge for at least four members of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad's governing board during the early 1990s.
The IIIT was part of a network of Islamic companies and charities long suspected of financing terrorism. It was a principal financier of the World and Islam Studies Enterprise (WISE), a think tank run by Palestinian Islamic Jihad board member Sami Al-Arian. Fellow PIJ board members Basheer Nafi and current Secretary General Ramadan Shallah worked at the WISE think tank in the early 1990s through visas Al-Arian helped secure.
In 1992, IIIT President Taha Jaber Al-Awani wrote to Al-Arian, saying he considers Al-Arian's think tank "an extension" of IIIT. "When we make a commitment to you or try to offer," Al-Awani wrote, "we do it for you as a group, regardless of the party or the façade you use the donation for."
According to an affidavit filed in connection with a 2002 search of the IIIT and related companies, the letter noted that others at IIIT, including Barzinji and Al-Talib, shared his assessment.
Ellison also received $1,000 from Esam Omeish, former president of the Muslim American Society (MAS), another group founded by Muslim Brotherhood members in the United States. The MAS Minnesota chapter paid Ellison's travel expenses for a 2008 pilgrimage to Mecca.
During a 2000 rally, Omeish praised Palestinians for "choosing the jihad way" to liberation.
Other donors include Turkish Islamist Merve Kavakci, and Asad Zaman, principal of the MAS-run Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy in Minneapolis, and Aly Abuzaakouk, former executive director of the American Muslim Council and a former IIIT publications director.
He also received money from two men who were officers in the American Muslim Council (AMC). Its founder and longtime executive director, Abdurrahman Alamoudi, pled guilty to illegal transactions with Libya that included a plot to kill a Saudi crown prince. Alamoudi was a Muslim Brotherhood member.
Ex-AMC President Mohammed Cheema has given Ellison $1,250 for the 2010 election. When President Bill Clinton invited novelist Salman Rushdie to the White House in 1993, Cheema wrote to the President saying the move showed "a disregard for the feelings of 7 million American Muslims." At the time, Rushdie faced a fatwa issued by the Ayatollah Khomeini for his novel, The Satanic Verses.
Another former AMC official, Yayha Basha, gave Ellison $500.
Ellison's campaign finance reports are surprisingly devoid of donations from executives at the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), although this doesn't mean CAIR won't help him raise money. Executive Director Nihad Awad helped organize, and spoke at an intimate March fundraiser for Ellison at Omeish's Virginia home.
It isn't clear why Awad would play such a supportive role, yet not be listed as a donor to Ellison's campaign. It may be that, of all the Islamist groups mentioned, CAIR may be the most politically risky today.
CAIR appears to be the subject of a federal grand jury probe and has been frozen out by the FBI out of concerns over the organization's ties to Hamas. An FBI official explained the cut off in a letter last year. In February, a Department of Justice official spelled out the evidence in a Hamas-support trial that justified naming CAIR as an unindicted co-conspirator.
Ellison remains close to CAIR nonetheless. He spoke at three CAIR fundraising dinners last year and took to the House floor to defend the organization after another member made critical statements about the group.
Last fall, Ellison berated a Muslim critic of Islamist organizations such as CAIR and MAS. Rather than taking on specific criticisms made by American Islamic Forum for Democracy founder Zuhdi Jasser, Ellison accused him of fomenting bigotry against his own people.
"I think people who want to engage in nothing less than Muslim-hating really love you a lot because you give them freedom to do that. You say, 'yeah, go get after them.'"
Politicians of all stripes deny being influenced by those who contribute to their campaigns. Contributors, they often say, want nothing more than good government and expect nothing in exchange for their money. Perhaps. In his two terms, Ellison has demonstrated repeated support for Islamist organizations and their issues, even serving as an attack dog against an anti-Islamist Muslim who advocates for the separation between mosque and state.
These contributions are a small slice of Ellison's campaign war chest and hardly constitute the difference between a third term or defeat. By seeking them out, the congressman makes clear that he sees himself not as a representative of all American Muslims. Just like-minded Islamists.

Popular Analysis