50 votes

My Position On Israel (Inspired by Granger)

Granger and others have been 'discussing' Israel. When the topic is raised in my community, I also get staunch supporting/opposing views.

My position is this: Israel is free to aspire all that they want, just as any other nation should be free to do. I do not support them, nor do I oppose them.

What I oppose is when OUR representatives entertain ANY foreign lobbyist as opposed to their own constituents. THAT is when I have a big and legitimate problem.

I am for world peace. I am for free market. But I am also for my Republic remaining sovereign, so that we who live here may protect it no matter what may possibly happen around the globe.

This may be a rudimentary post, but some things require rudimentary answers/solutions.

Btw: it has been said that Israel is smarter and more advanced. Maybe, maybe not, but when our representatives decide to invest in OUR nation and not nation-build overseas, I have NO doubt whatsoever that we can and will hold our own.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

There ought not be dual citizenship/allegiance ...

It is a long held maxim of law no one can serve two masters.

The essence of citizenship is an indefinite office which shares in the honors of the state and the administration of justice.

If the concept of allegiance is to be respected or preserved you don't let people with multiple allegiance share in the honors of the state or administration of justice by voting or serving on a jury.

Since most people don't even understand the concept of citizenship, the indefinite office that is occupied, duties or obligations of the office, and that no one can be compelled or coerced to occupy it ...

Since it obviously impossible for these ideas to be passed down from one generation born ignorant to the next generation born ignorant ...

Let's just get rid of the damn state and all of these complicated concepts people don't give a shit about, understand, or bother to pass down, and simply allow competition in justice to flourish.

Could it be...

...similar, in some ways, to being born into one family but married into another? Does my love of the one necessarily have to lessen my love for the other? Hmm... but alleigance to my wife and my sons transcends these other alleigances.

Or does a Christian, who gives his highest alleigance to a heavenly King, or anyone who gives an ultimate alleigance to a higher natural law make a poor citizen of a state? You can see how the Romans feared the spread of Christianity because of its alleigance to a King higher than Caesar (and then later co-opted it in order to contain and define it). And you can see why the authoritarians fear us who hold a higher alleigance to self-evident truths such as Life and Liberty than their shackles and chains.

I also think of the Apostle Paul who was a Christian, a citizen of Israel, and a citizen of Rome. :)


"Or does a Christian, who gives his highest alleigance to a heavenly King, or anyone who gives an ultimate alleigance to a higher natural law make a poor citizen of a state?"


"I also think of the Apostle Paul who was a Christian, a citizen of Israel, and a citizen of Rome. :)"

I have always felt Paul placing faith in something other than God by declaring himself to be a Roman thereby seeking to benefit from protection in Roman law in order to prevent being beaten ... was the beginning of the end for Paul. Quite frankly I don't see any difference of substance between Paul claiming to be a Roman citizen for protection and that OT story about some rebellious people demanding the Lord be replaced by a king for protection.


...it's rather the case that a person who holds alleigance to natural law which transcends all nations makes the best kind of citizen of any state, in that they will (or ought to) actually be championing that which any and every state needs to embrace if they are to be truly strong and healthy.

Echoes of the principles in the Declaration...


Regarding Paul, would we not be relying on God enough if we demanded our right to due process as American citizens, etc.?

It seems to me

that when faced with a choice between submission or coercion it is better to submit to the will of men than be coerced and it is better to simultaneously place one's faith in God instead of men imposing their will.

Demand? It also seems to me this is an odd term for any Christian to use outside of the context of a rebuke.

Do not presume I see myself as so righteous that I have been able to live up to either of those standards because ... quite the opposite is true. :)

Yes --

-- we as stewards of our Republic must demand our leaders obey the higher law and actually fulfill their duty to 'reward good and punish evildoing' within the context of that natural law, upholding Life and Liberty. When they twist their power away from the natural law and become tyrants, they are stepping outside the proper role of government and must be held to account by the People.

For us to become complacent and not demand accountability by our government to the higher natural law is to shirk our duty as stewards. And letting authoritarians steamroll over Liberty, whether our own or another's is only coddling and partaking in the tyranny.

Not that I always live up to these ideals, myself. :)

I do not think this:

" ... must demand our leaders obey the higher law and actually fulfill their duty ..."

can be demanded by the people to legislate the morality of leaders in the same way leaders themselves can't legislate morality of the people.

It seems to me that once you go beyond objecting to a trespass and actively resist that resistance itself, even in a form of self defense, has the potential to become force instead of merely resistance. It also seems to me this phenomenon is observable in nature. In nature, violence seems to occur precisely at the point where a force exceeds a resistance.

If all violence was not bad, some forms of violence would not have to be justified, such as self defense. But they do have to be justified because all violence is in fact bad. In conclusion what I am saying is that once resistance takes on a violent form it is bad but justified by men, whose justifications may not count for much in the kingdom of heaven.

It would be...

...ideal, of course, if we lived in a world where not even self-defense was necessary; unfortunately, until that kingdom of heaven is realized in full, we won't have such luxury. Violence in defense of our nation and principles should never be craved and should only be a last resort, after a long train of other efforts are exhausted and abuses suffered (like Jefferson detailed in the Declaration).

Just out of curiosity, what particular branch of the faith do you currently call home? I'm in the middle of studying church history/denominations. Are you perchance from a Friends congregation? Mennonite? (If you don't mind my asking...don't mean to be too nosy. :) )

I do

not identify with a particular denomination. I am a spiritual independent. I have been called a fence rider by someone whose opinion I respect. It really sucks when someone holds that kind of mirror in front of you but if one identifies a principal as good yet lacks courage to fully place their faith or trust in it by leaping off a metaphorical cliff ... fence rider is a pretty accurate label. It is not that I have no faith at all. Perhaps it is only the size of an atom comprising a mustard seed. Every time I seek I find a new question. There is probably much I could opine about the superior court of life's trials but in my experience people don't care about such things so I won't bore you.

I hear you...

I'm kind of feeling unsure of where I belong exactly -- largely because of becoming convinced of Christian universalism in the last couple years. My church just denounced such views as 'heresy', so not sure I'd ever be welcome as a member there now.

LittleWing's picture

That would be a good place to start

otherwise, all the brown dogs would be put to sleep asap or held indefinitely in a cage in inhumane conditions.

Seriously, I think anyone that is seeking to hold an office that can shape national policy in any way should voluntarily renounce allegiance to any other foreign nation or be ineligible. Of course that would not take care of the problem with all of the Zionists and 'Israel Firsters' that are not dual citizens.

If Wars Can Be Started by Lies, They Can Be Stopped By Truth.

Yeah --

I'm a dual citizen -- natural-born American plus a Kiwi by New Zealand law. Personally, I would renounce if I were to run for anything where it would be an issue, but I have no intention of ever doing so. In my case, I don't find my love of New Zealand conflicts in any way with my love of my homeland of America and it's heritage of Liberty and the Constitution.

articles by jonas e. alexis

regarding israel and the bolsheviks and just everything in general that has been going on latetly

read jonas's latest article here:


this guy is chock full of knowledge about the past and present concerning zionist extremists controls over the very fabric of our lives.

give it a read and maybe granger will wake the heck up.

"He's this eccentric Ghandi-Like figure that you cant touch with the normal bribes that people respond to."
the man Doug Wead on DR. RON PAUL

THE OTHER ISRAEL [full documentary]


Ted Pikes excellent documentary The Other Israel.

I'll just leave this here


Israel did 9/11. Deal with it.

Ecclesiastes 1:9 What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.

That is how I feel about Israel too...

My support is really just my thoughts and prayers... and often times verbally defending it's sovereign right to exist.

We should end all foreign aid. We should also end the federal income tax. That way people who want to send their money to support other nations' peoples and charities can do so privately, and those who don't want to send their money, wont be forced to.

Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

Hear, hear

Of course, Israel has a right to exist. Any group of people with a common bond, which is able to establish a home for itself, deserves to keep and defend it.

Obviously, we [U.S.] don't have the financial strength to keep sending foreign aid. How many generations deep are we going to go into debt?

I agree about the financial aid--

the native Americans had a right to exist in the 1600s--

some of their demise was due to Europeans bringing in disease; other was the more open decimation due to aggression by 'settlers'--

I know; I know; it happened long ago--





America is a very hypocritical nation, and, though no true reparition (IMO) has been made the native Americans or the imported African slaves--


America has no right to interfere with any other nation in any way--

I can see the present day Palestinians, however, and think about the native Americans from 300 years of atrocity--

it's happening now, here and there--

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

And this is the problem

How can you negotiate with someone who's basic non-negotiable position is to kill you?


you need to make it clear whose position that is--

before anyone can understand what you are saying--

perhaps there are few 'peoples' in the world whose non-negotiable position is not to kill some other 'people'--

there are exceptions; I would argue that most third world countries are not trying to kill someone else--

but even if it is economic exploitation, most 'developed' countries are hugely successful in killing others--

the answer, if it can be honestly done, is fair trade--

perhaps, until all human beings see all other human beings as their 'brothers/sisters' there will be no safe place for anyone--

but in the meantime, I am trying to understand your position.

Nobody is totally innocent; there were 'bad guys' among the native Americans and the African Americans--

but when they were almost entirely abuse, exploited, destroyed--

when their life expectancies were/are so terribly low and their mortalities and infant mortality were so high--

who was behind that and why?

And I forgot to mention that the British 'legal' system, operated by high-ranking British elites--

made an earnest attempt for centuries to destroy Ireland and the Irish--

how many of the impoverished Europeans who had survived the horrors of working class (and below) England and other British nations--

to come to America--

exploited the native Americans and the African Americans--

or mistreated the Asians on the West coast?

Does anyone ever learn his/her lesson? Or do most people not care as long as they have enough (or too much) to eat?

Until human beings take literally Jesus' admonition to 'do unto others as you would have others do unto you'---

this nightmare is not going to end--

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

deacon's picture

was this post made

to create a hatem-em-up topic?
If it wasn't,that's where it went
and if it was good job,mission accomplished

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence

Michael has had it with The Granger so he is allowing this

Case in point - http://www.dailypaul.com/298868#comment-3196087

This post is even a promoted DP Original.

There are too man harsh words and personal attacks in this thread.

The only post of mine that ever got banned was an attack/sanity-check thread for Legalizeliberty, when that Canadian was telling us to vote for Gary Johnson 17 times a day. That thread got shut down fast, and rightfully so, even though it had a ton of upvotes (in fact, you were one of the people to complain about it, deacon). It was against site rules and this thread has ventured into that territory as well.

With liberty and justice for all...who can afford it.

deacon's picture

I remember that post

and i remember my comment
This post is the same,but worse than yours
I do not think you knew what would happen once that post
was entered in,i knew what was going to happen,saw it before
but this poster knew full well what was going to happen and willingly
posted it anyways.
The fact that I posted questions that went unanswered,is another reason
why i know for a fact it was to incite hate
This is MN's site,he can do what he wants with it,including letting this happen,but shouldn't he be setting the example,instead of breaking the rules he himself set up?
He also spoke of raising the bar,did he raise or lower the bar?
And this is exactly what all gov's do,set up rules that they themselves break

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence


Lock or live does not matter to me. I simply wanted to state my position in as few words as possible, for others to read and fully understand. It is our Republic that we should defend, as I have outlined to the best of my ability in the main thread.

Granger and I disagree about many things. Granger and I also speak civilly on the phone together. Granger and I discussed this in advance, so there was no misunderstanding or plan of attack. See it or not, or agree or not, Granger does have a good heart.

Lastly, I have taken the conversations pertaining to this into my community. It is interesting to hear different perspectives. While I learn from many, I hope that they may learn from me as well. That is why this forum is so important to me. It is where I vet, and gain perspective.

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul

deacon's picture

you may or may not have spoke beforehand

But did the rest get that memo?
and did this post of yours go the way i asked? Yes
so did it turn into a hate-a-thon? yes
while you can say it was not a plan of attack,did it turn out that way? yes
did i ever say the granger had a bad heart? or that i didn't like her? No
so why bring this into the mix?
you should have known what was going to happen before it was even posted
and if you thought your friend was going to be attacked,what could you have done to remedy that?
and maybe just maybe,knowing there are differences between her thinking and most others here,you could have left her name out of it,whether you had her blessings or not
Do you see the comments back and forth,have you read them all?
you are still culpable in the outcome of your actions or in-actions
concerning this post,are you not?
and a friend of yours got hurt and attacked,and all for having a difference in beliefs,opinions and her stance
just my opinion

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence

Your position

is duly noted.

In hindsight, you may be correct. It is also up to each individual to carry a conversation without hostility.

Granger: Please accept my sincere apology, Deacon is correct; I should have refrained from referencing you.

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul

And the focus should be on the duly elected ...

corrupt, bought and paid for, congressperson. Not the lobbiest.

If I was from another country and I saw that the US was handing out foreign aid like it was going out of style I would be over here lobbying for freebies just like anyone else would.

Israel is great

They know how to run a country.
The U.S. should use jus sanguinis as the primary mechanism through which one may obtain citizenships, as well.

This is funny.

whatever - This forum does not seem very conservative, considering its namesake.

Jus soli is observed by a minority of the world's countries. Of advanced economies, Canada and the United States are the only countries that observe birthright citizenship. Jus soli is mainly in use in “the new world” — the Americas. Since 2004, no European country grants unconditional birthright citizenship.

In a number of countries, to discourage illegal immigration, automatic citizenship by jus soli has been withdrawn or restricted by imposing additional requirements, such as requiring that at least one parent be a legal permanent resident or that a parent has resided in the country for a specific period of time.

Go ahead, vote me down. Go vote for the Senate immigration reform bill, while you're voting.

I support removal of illegal aliens, reduction of immigration, removal of the treasonous politicians, who support the Senate immigration bill, and repeal of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 which has corrupted our country and reduced Americans' standard of living, since it was enacted.

I agree. The standard, as Rand and Ron also say:

should also be held for other NATO countries, as well as other ME Countries.

We should be repairing our own country before speculating on what should be done to fix other countries.

"Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern." ~~C.S. Lewis
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15