Mar 2, 2015

Netanyahu's Speech And The Black Caucus

My associate over at The African American Clarion Call is not happy about Netanyahu's upcoming address to Congress, he finds it disrespectful to Obama. He resents the Democrats who are not boycotting the speech, and specifically any that belong to the Black Caucus. He has particular scorn for a group of African American Pastors who have urged the caucus members to attend. He writes, This is not just embarrassing for Obama, but for the entire country that a foreign leader, particularly one like Netanyahu, can hold that sort of sway over our elected officials. It's like Netanyahu is the president rather than Obama. It's certainly the case that the congress fears Netanyahu more than the Obama. Basically, the Israeli lobby has purchased the entire congress. In regard to the pastors, he goes on to say, Just goes to show that everyone can be bought.

I  totally disagree with the writer about  the appropriateness of Netanyahu's speech, and who should attend. However,  this post is not about that disagreement, but about an engrained stereotype about the Jews and Israel. The writer assumes that anybody who supports Netanyahu's right to speak must have been bought and paid for by the Jews.  Fortunately for Israel, not everybody shares that prejudice.


Anonymous said...

Does the Israeli lobby represented by AIPAC and related entities represent all Jews? Do all Jews contribute to AIPAC? Do all Jews even support Netanyahu? Is there a distinction between all Jews and the Israeli lobby I referred to? My comments were directed towards the lobby, not necessarily towards Jews in general who may or may not have anything to do with the lobby. So, let’s get that established first.

Strangely, even Senator Diane Feinstein agrees with me:

“He doesn’t at all speak for me on this,” Senator Dianne Feinstein told CNN on Sunday. “I think it’s a rather arrogant statement. I think the Jewish community is like any other community; there are different points of view.
“I happen to believe Israel is a lot safer with an agreement that’s agreed to by all of the big powers including ourselves, than it is if there is no agreement and if Iran decides to breakout. Then Israel attacks Iran, Iran attacks back, then what happens?”

So, I suppose Feinstein is being “prejudiced” as well?

Secondly, I’ve become somewhat of a political atheist tired of the partisanship and the corruptness in the nation’s politics. Much of that corruptness has come from the money in politics and the revolving door between lobbyists, certain economic interests and elected officials. This means a couple of things for the country: 1) a true public debate over the real issues the country faces can’t be had and 2) the issues that actually align with the concerns of most people can’t be addressed. Thus, I’m not a supporter of either party per se as a result. AIPAC is just one of several competing interests who purchase politicians and corrupt the process. There are many others. But here’s more in AIPAC from Open Secrets:

“…Few lobbies dedicated to international issues are so active and well-financed as the Israel lobby. The question of Israel's future has the right mix to attract monied interests -- it's a highly fractious issue with high stakes and it plays a big role in domestic politics.

A powerful pro-Israel force has carved out an influential place in American campaigns in the form of super PAC megadonor Sheldon Adelson. Adelson doled out a whopping $92.8 million to Republican super PACs in 2012, making him the single highest contributor to outside groups that year…..”

Now, let me ask you a question Michael. With that kind of money floating around, how can someone NOT be influenced? How can someone NOT be bought? Are we really to believe that Adelson and AICPAC are dispensing this largess purely from altruistic intent and does that intent have anything to do with the interest of the common citizens of this nation? I will admit one thing however and amend my statement about the entire congress having been bought. They don’t have to buy everyone, just certain key people. Many of the rest will act like kids in the classroom trying to get the teacher’s attention so they can be bought. Is it possible that certain folks are supportive of Netanyahu simply on principle, however misdirected? That’s certainly possible, but I’d guess they’re a distinct minority.

Anonymous said...

For this American Jew, all this visit is going to do is reignite the accusations of 'dual loyalty' that have plagued us off and on since Pollard. Bibi should stay home and have a few more affairs and mistreat women, something he is actually knowledgeable about. Recently released Mossad documents show he lied the last time about Iran.

michael molovinsky said...

@6:07, before i reply, are you Clarion?

@6:08, you are not an american jew, but a malicious predator, who thinks he's so clever. you have a major court case coming up as a result of your distortions and misrepresentations. you should spend your time preparing for that, and not cyberstalking all day.

future comments from 6:08 will not appear, nor will any such comments about netanyahu. this post is about how attitudes about netanyahu's speech are affected by historical prejudges against jews, and misconceptions about jews and israel in the black community.

Anonymous said...

6:07 is Clarion

Anonymous said...

I am greatly anticipating this speech. Netanyahu is a gifted speaker. He comes to share insight based on his DIRECT knowledge of what is one of the world's most controversial issues. An issue NO media can possibly ignore altogether. Here is an outstanding witness.

NO ONE is being forced to attend, watch, or read whatever he presents on what is our world's biggest stage. There is no law prohibiting the House from inviting him. If it chooses, the House can host another speaker with a completely opposite view. I'd watch that, too.

My expectation is, Netanyahu will largely speak of peace, and his nation's fear of losing that. He will talk of freedom and liberty. He will stress his obligation to defend his people, above all else.
He will show pride in Israel being any ally of the United States, and for his having lived here and graduating from our schools.

Try and remove the D and R from your thinking. It will liberate your mind. Next, ask yourself one question.

Why do some, maybe even you, reject, and project such fear over what THIS speaker might message?

Fred Windish

michael molovinsky said...

clarion @6:07, to me there are two issues. one is the implications of your post, and the other is a current in the black community which is very suspicious of jews and israel.

not all jews feel the same way about israel or anything else, just as all blacks don't feel the same way about different issues, including this speech by netanyahu. it doesn't mean anybody has been "bought" on one side of the issue or the other.

by identifying the IAPAC as so "purchasing and corrupting" you are stroking a historical prejudge against a minority which are only 2% of the population. a comment from your own page "It should be quite clear to the American public who is on the AshkeNAZI payroll."

you bring up sheldon adelson, who certainly was a player in 2012. please understand that these accusations against IAPAC have been around for decades, although nobody heard of aldelson before that election cycle.

there is no violation of the logan act. people are asked to address congress all the time, on all sorts of topics. i concede the forthcoming speech has created some tension, but apparently netanyahu believes that his message must be delivered, for the sake of his country. he has said this over and over, but because of politics and prejudice, we are having this dialogue.

Anonymous said...

I think anybody who STILL supports the failed President Obama has been bought and paid for.

And bought off rather cheaply, as well.

Anonymous said...

This is Clarion and I have to break this response in two posts due to blogger.

What are the “implications” of my post beyond noting the power and influence of the Israeli lobby on American politics, often against the interests of the citizens? Also, just so I know what you’re referring to, what is this undercurrent of suspicions about Jews and Israel that’s supposedly so prevalent in the African-American community?

I wouldn’t say that there are “accusations” against AIPAC per se. There are, however, assertions of fact and the reason they’ve been persistent for decades is because AIPAC has been influencing policy for decades. Now perhaps for some that’s not an issue, but I have a problem when any lobby exerts such an undue influence on policy whether it’s the Israeli lobby or any other lobby; the main reason being that it’s not democratic. You insist on linking an opposition to this influence to anti-semitism when it’s uncertain that even a majority the “2% of the population” that’s Jewish even supports this. And if it that were the case, it is democratic for 2% of the population to drive a policy that affects the other 98%?

There have a variety of studies on the undue influence of the Israeli lobby most notably a study entitled “The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy” by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt. The book happened to be a New York Times Best Seller due to the apparent high level of interest in the topic much to the chagrin of those who’d much prefer this topic not be explored. This is an excerpt from a review of the book:

“…..Indeed, perhaps the most powerful section of the book is when the authors highlight cases in which significant parts of the lobby have leveled the anti-Semitism charge at individuals guilty of nothing more than challenging the human rights record of Israel. Due to such overuse, they write, “There are signs that the reflexive charge of anti-Semitism is beginning to lose its power to stifle debate.” (195) Nevertheless, they rightly note that “If politicians know that it is risky to question Israeli policy or the United States’ unyielding support for Israel, then it will be harder for the mainstream media to locate authoritative voices that are willing to disagree with the lobby’s views.” (196) Intimidation and ugly slanders work. This book does much to expose the unsavory practice and is intended to open space for substantive discussion regarding Israel and the lobby that reflexively backs it, right or wrong.

Anonymous said...

Clarion part 2

"...Mearsheimer and Walt devote the early chapters of the book to dismantling the strategic and moral arguments commonly made on Israel’s behalf. The two realists are perhaps most convincing on the moral front when they challenge the common narrative of little Israel fending off ruthless Arab states. “A good case can be made that current US policy conflicts with basic American values and that if the United States were to choose sides on the basis of moral considerations alone, it would back the Palestinians, not Israel.” (80) To wit, they challenge the notion of shared common values by citing authoritative polls indicating that “55 percent of Israeli Jews wanted segregated entertainment facilities, while more than 75 percent said they would not live in the same building as an Israeli Arab.” (88) This is Israel in 2007 and not the Jim Crow South of 1950. Such discriminatory beliefs translated into law, they maintain “are not consistent with America’s image of a multi-ethnic democracy in which all citizens are supposed to be treated equally regardless of their ancestry.” (89)

With The Israel Lobby being released in the very month that State Department official Patrick Syring was exposed for having telephoned the Arab American Institute in 2006 and declared, “The only good Arab is a dead Arab,” it is disquieting to see that IDF Chief of Staff Rafael Eitan has said much the same. (89) Such open racism generally ends careers in the United States. In Israel, as the authors illustrate, such views are all-too-frequently held at the highest level of government…”

If we’re going to have this debate, I’m going to insist that it not be limited to the black/Jewish relationship---which is a huge topic in and of itself and one that’s definitely worthy of exploring---but the first issue at hand is Netanyahu’s disrespectful foray into our politics and the prima facie evidence of undue influence of the Israeli lobby.

Anonymous said...

"Intimidation and ugly slanders work"

I sure hope accusing Israel of buying off the entire United States Congress does not fail to complete its assigned task.

michael molovinsky said...

clarion, you can find endless articles criticizing israel, its policies, and even articles written by jews. where they appear, be it ny times or mad magazine, have little bearing on accuracy.

in regard to the treatment of palestinians in israel, gaza or the west bank; up to two years ago it always has been the "reason" given for greater arab resentment against the USA. according to that school of thought, it could only have been the "influential" IAPAC which caused our foreign policy to be so blindsighted. in the current world of sunni/shite conflict and isis, we now know that israel and its supporters are just trying to survive in a most hostile neighborhood. even egypt now calls hamas terrorists.

netanyahu isn't disrespecting obama by giving a speech. he was invited by the speaker of the house. netanyahu also isn't being a patsy for republican partisanship, nor is he trying to boost his election results back home. he knows that this speech is controversial on each of those levels, but feels the obama administration doesn't fully appreciate the consequences to israel a bad agreement with iran can have.

i've seen very little empathy in the black community for israel or jews. if it's jeremiah wright or jesse jackson, jews are portrayed as opportunists at best, racists at worst. you need only read the comments on your own page to see that.

Anonymous said...

I just can't understand how ANY American can live in FEAR of the free and open expression of ideas.

Has our nation fallen to such a hopeless level of existence?

Fred Windish

Anonymous said...

Being born in 1948 I have been taught to believe Israel is America'a partner in the mid-east .It seems since President Obama and Hillary Clinton took over America's foreign policy Israel is more of an enemy than a friend.Why aren't American Jews and Democrats standing behind Israel and against Obama and The Democrats

michael molovinsky said...

@10:16, we have become a polarized nation, to our determent. different viewpoints are ridiculed, rather than debated. ethnic groups, be it jews or blacks, have come to assume that democrats best serve their needs.

doug_b said...

I don't understand the relentless attacks on Netanyahu and Israel.

We have the TSA and Homeland security - and we are 12,000 miles away from the 7th century Islamists. These monsters are his neighbor, who openly deny the Holocaust, and say they will destroy Israel.

Why would he come and address the Congress? Because the POTUS and his staff can't be trusted.

Lying is acceptable to President Obama. Fast and Furious, Lois Lerner and the IRS, Benghazi, Gruber and the ACA. Then there are twisted stats where are unemployment is less than 6% - yet there are 94,000,000 working age, unemployed people. Unemployment goes down, cause they don't count them any more. Over 47,000,000 on SNAP - more than the population of Spain. More on SS disability than the population of Greece. Federal Reserve with 0% interest (ZIPR) - has destroyed retired people's interest from savings. And of course the famous "If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor". This man's solution was to rip apart everyone else's health care, and substitute his own.

If the POTUS treats us, the citizens in this manner - how do you think he treats other countries? I'm sure Netanyahu doesn't trust the guy. That's why he's here!

Forget all the complicated arguements.

Anonymous said...

This speech is all about the threat that Iran poses to Israel and the world and the sellout agreement the Obama Administration is trying to reach with this terrorist state.

The prime minister is here to inject some sanity into the conversation. Thank God!

Scott Armstrong

Anonymous said...

>>>you can find endless articles criticizing israel, its policies, and even articles written by jews. where they appear, be it ny times or mad magazine, have little bearing on accuracy.<<<

Notwithstanding your blithe dismissal Michael, “The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy” was an authoritative analysis of the relationship between the Israeli lobby and US policy. This was not written by some fly by night authors. Mearsheimer is a professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago while Walt is a professor at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard; hardly “anti-Semites” from Po-Dunk U. Their analysis was spot on which was one of the reasons their book on the topic was a New York Times Best Seller. It implies that a return to more neutral policy stance is in the interest of the United States and I happen to agree with that position. If Israel wants to go off and attack Iran, I say let them, but let them do so on their own dime and without our involvement. I suspect peace would break out overnight in that circumstance.

>>>in regard to the treatment of palestinians in israel, gaza or the west bank; up to two years ago it always has been the "reason" given for greater arab resentment against the USA. according to that school of thought, it could only have been the "influential" IAPAC which caused our foreign policy to be so blindsighted.<<<

Sometimes those who call themselves conservative, like to boil down things to just being black and white; thus one side is just evil while the other is good. One side is a terrorist while the other runs a civil society. The real world is in shades of grey and understanding requires that one engage in thoughtful analysis of events and circumstances that led to current conditions. There are several things that have occurred in the middle east that contribute to conditions there. Certainly, Israel’s apartheid like policies vis a via the Palestinians and others is a contributing factor. Historical colonialism, resource grabs, incessant meddling and the petrodollar are also huge factors. (Of course, some of these very same issues have affected places like Africa and South America as well). The fact that they may remain unacknowledged doesn’t alter the historical context.

Anonymous said...

>>>>obama administration doesn't fully appreciate the consequences to israel a bad agreement with iran can have.<<<<

Israel has but one policy toward Iran and that’s war. Unfortunately for it, but fortunately for the rest of us, it lacks the capacity to carry out that desired war by itself, thus it must drag the US into it. Given the existing war commitments, the US likely doesn’t have the capacity either and I’m guessing that the administration figured another tact was in order and decided to cut a deal. They probably need Iran’s help on Iraq and probably wish to ensure that Iran doesn’t lean toward the Russian orbit. In other words, what Israel wants has been judged to be a bad deal for US interests (both political and economic).

The bottom line is if Netanyahu feels that strongly, why is he here running his mouth attempting to reverse this. Let Israel come up with their own money, troops and etc. and have at it if they want Iran so bad.

>>>i've seen very little empathy in the black community for israel or jews. if it's jeremiah wright or jesse jackson, jews are portrayed as opportunists at best, racists at worst. you need only read the comments on your own page to see that.<<<<<<

The post I made on this subject has drawn interest from a diverse group of people. It is true that the majority of comments are not in favor of Netanyahu. I’ve not seen any comments that were anti-Semitic although there is one comment that’s out of line that I’ll remove. There have been a few comments that have characterized certain Israeli policies as being racist. Those comments have focused on the policies rather than assigning that racism to Jews broadly and that characterization has merit. If policies are oppressive against one group then it must follow that they might be extended to others.

I don’t speak for African-Americans as a whole any more than you speak for Jews. Thus the only thing I can do is speculate on how others might feel. In my experience, the topic of Jews or Israel is not a topic that comes up frequently. But if I were to speculate where an aggrieved people, like those of the blood Afric, might exhibit empathy, it would be with those individuals who have a shared experience of being victims of oppression and racism. The Jewish experience with these sorts of things is well known at the hands of the Germans and others, but those experiences appear to overshadowed by current policies. Setting aside the issues regarding the Palestinians for the moment, let’s examine Israel’s policies towards the Falashmura or Ethopian Jewry. This is from Forbes:

“ This weekend, a report revealing that African women immigrating to Israel were subjected to mandatory contraceptive injections, effectively amounting to forced (if temporary) sterilization made global headlines.

Anonymous said...

"Some 130,000 Ethiopians, most of them Jewish, live in Israel. The community experiences higher poverty and unemployment rates than the rest of the country’s Jewish population. In the past decade, the birth rate among Ethiopian-Israelis has declined by at least 20 percent. Advocacy groups now claim this decline is the result of a birth control regimen forced upon Ethiopian immigrant women.

According to an article in Haaretz, an Israeli news source, one Ethiopian immigrant said that the doctors who injected her claimed that “people who frequently give birth suffer.” While it is possible, if highly unlikely, that doctors genuinely had the women’s health in mind when they forcibly injected them with contraceptives, there is no excuse for depriving women sovereignty over their own reproductive choices.

……That Israel should allegedly engage in this activity is particularly shocking, considering the practice was widely used by the Germans throughout the Shoah. While the scale and effects of these operations cannot be compared, Israel’s implicit intent to limit ‘burdensome’ (read: undesirable) portions of the population recalls the dark eugenics experiments of World War II.”

Now these are your fellow Jews mind you; they just happen to be of a different hue. Israel, invoking policy like a modern day Margaret Sanger, engages in eugenics effectively declaring that Ethiopian Jewry along with the Arabs are “undesirable”. The reason? It can only come down to skin color.

Answer me this----who should I empathize with? The Falashmura or those executing these policies? Actually, let me answer that, I come down on the side of the oppressed not the oppressor and my sense of justice and empathy is not dulled simply because that group may not share my skin color or culture. One of the reasons Israel is viewed as a pariah state by much of the world is policies such as these. These are policies that an increasing number of the American people are becoming aware of and this is one of the reason why divestment campaigns, like those called for in the case of South Africa, are now being called for against Israel. In the long run, the policies aren’t sustainable and doesn’t bode well for our own nation to the extent that we’re closely associated with them.

Anonymous said...

United States Congress (the House of Representative and the Senate) is a separate and CO-EQUAL branch in relation to the Executive branch of the United States Government.

Thus, the U.S. Congress does NOT need to ask the Executive Branch's permission to invite somebody to speak before them.

For a guy who is allegedly such a Constitutional scholar, why is it that the history-making President Barack Hussein Obama NEVER seems to have the slightest clue as to how the Federal Government is actually supposed to work according to rules outlined in The Constitution?

And, it is Obama and his Kool Aid drinkers constantly playing the Race Card who are the ones who are flat out disrespectful!

I will not sign my name because I do not want to become a target of the IRS, like so many others, unfortunately, already have become.

Anonymous said...


Conservatives see things in Black and white...interesting. However in response I would say Democrats will defend their side no matter what the subject and never hesitate to insult and impugn those who dare disagree with their message of the day. Presently it is Netanyahu who is a really bad guy, so dutifully those such as yourself dedicate their time on sites such as this to comply with the DNC directive. Sad, really sad. It is the stuff of a totalitarian mindset.

Scott Armstrong

Anonymous said...

7:27. Why hide behind anonymous? If you have a point of view, fix your name to it and be proud of your well thought out reasoning. This said one can only conclude you aren't so sure of your statement and prefer to remain nameless.

Scott Armstrong

michael molovinsky said...

clarion, we both had our say on all the points save one, so i will not hash back to the other ones.

the falashmura were bought to israel in three waves, at great expense and effort by the israeli government. decades earlier, in the 1950's, the jews from arab lands were bought to israel in similar fashion. in the following decades it was reported that those sephardic(arab) jews suffered discrimination from the european jews. the falasha considered themselves rescued, and are part and parcel of israeli society. although you may find a story such as you wrote, you will not meet any who wish to return to ethiopia.

Anonymous said...

>>>However in response I would say Democrats will defend their side no matter what the subject and never hesitate to insult and impugn those who dare disagree with their message of the day. Presently it is Netanyahu who is a really bad guy, so dutifully those such as yourself dedicate their time on sites such as this to comply with the DNC directive. Sad, really sad. It is the stuff of a totalitarian mindset.<<<

You come looking for a democrat to engage in partisan talking points, however, I don't consider myself to be a democrat. I'm not a republican either and I'm not one particularly interested in the typical partisan ying and yang. I'm merely a citizen observer with an informed opinion and no axe to grind for a political party. I'm neither a liberal or a conservative. My views are too complex to boil down to one simple label. If I told you my name, you would not know me. I'm not "visible".

As to "dutifully dedicating myself to this site", my previous posts here were 4 or 5 years ago and I wouldn't be posting here now save for Michael's reference to my FB post.

Finally, I believe I've supported my opinions with a fact based argument. My reasoning and analysis stands as is until overcome with a fact based rebuttal.

Anonymous said...


The fact that Israel relocated the Falashmura does not overcome their racist eugenics experiments to sterilize them. Nothing can overcome that and that's a huge contradiction to everything Israel purportedly stands for.

The query that I answered related to empathy and who I speculate African-Americans might have empathy with. Moreover, the broader question should also involve who the Jews have empathy with.

Notwithstanding the harm visited upon others, perhaps the greatest harm wrought by these policies are to the Jews themselves.

In any event, thanks for the exchange.

michael molovinsky said...

clarion, IF the women were given birth control without their consent, the allegation was a three month injection of depo-provera. to refer to that as "eugenic experiments to sterilize them" is simply anti-israel slander and an attempt to compare them to nazis.

the absorption of the ethiopian jews has not been without problems. over 90 % of the immigrants were illiterate, in any language. this put their children at a distinct disadvantage. there are aggressive early childhood programs being instituted to help close these gaps. i will back channel you with some links.

as for our exchange. i imposed my issue with your netanyahu post upon you. although we strongly disagree, i thank you for responding in a most gentlemanly way. michael m

Anonymous said...

anonymous posting always lack credibility. I doubted your claims from the start but the fact you won't sign your name makes it clear even you won't stand by them.

Scott Armstrong

michael molovinsky said...

scott@7:17, as you know, i have often taken people to task for commenting anonymously. however, in clarion's case, its different. he has a long established website, The African American Clarion Call, which i have linked to for years. he also has a facebook page of the same name. i took statements from his facebook page, with which i have issue, and made this post from them. i did inform him of my action by way of a link on his fb page. his point of view is consistent, and is verifiable by way of his archive.

Steven Ramos said...

MM, I believe, lamentably, that the strife that raises its head from time to time between our communities is due to not understanding why some communities seem to be more successful. A Syrian friend of mine works almost 80 hours a week and he's not alone others in his family have the same commitment to work. Will they have greater success than many of us that don't have the same commitment? Of course. Is it a conspiracy? No. It's work, it's dedication, it's spending less than you earn, it's lifting up the value of education, it's setting one priority over another - work over -fill in the blank-.

Does AIPAC have greater influence than other lobbyists - I'm not sure, but, if they do, instead of resenting them let us begin to discover why they're successful and hold accountable the groups that say they represent us and are silent while many in our own communities sow the seeds that lead to broken homes and poverty.

Those of us that support Israel don't need AIPAC to pay us or to tell us why we should support Israel. We read and see the news, we know that Israel is the only place in the middle east where all of its citizens regardless of ethnicity and creed are treated equally under the law and where all of its citizens are equally targeted by those who want to destroy it.

Anonymous said...

>>anonymous posting always lack credibility. I doubted your claims from the start but the fact you won't sign your name makes it clear even you won't stand by them.<<

Dataless and unsupported party line opinion is what's not credible whether possessing attribution or not. I've supported my "claims" and reasoning with reference material. I don't see where you've offered anything other than your dataless opinion. I've nothing to prove to you, thus there's no compelling need on my part to establish "credibility" with you or anyone else. I only came here to discuss with Michael. As he's indicated, we are in strong disagreement, but I appreciate the fact that that can be done without being disagreeable which is often a challenge on our local blog scene.

michael molovinsky said...

steven@10:42, although what you're saying is very politically incorrect, i agree completely. i understand that privilege and discrimination are realities in this world, and some may have to work harder even to get to the start line, but those inequities shouldn't be used as an excuse, especially in this country.

Anonymous said...

American citizens, and non-citizens, have become BLINDED by the letters D and R.

Our politicians are guilty of the same. But, some politicians see a more pressing concern, beyond just determining what is good, or bad, policy.

For politicians, it's what can best keep my campaign funded so he/she can remain in office and climb the political career ladder.

I ask everyone to seriously consider their incumbent politician's actions, and vote AGAINST them, if necessary.

Liberate your thinking.

Forget the D and R!

Fred Windish