Tweet
These two threads caused me to do some investigation on this subject:
http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/sh...d.php?t=388989
http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/sh...d.php?t=389015
*******
I would like to raise a serious question and or discussion on the topic, Conflict Of Interest In National Politics. And I would like to focus specifically on two nations, The United States and The United Kingdom.
Here's the question and conversation in a nutshell.
Politicians in both countries control the destiny of their respective nations, maintain the national infrastructure and budget, maintain national defense and disperse revenue gained via taxation for the good of the nation and its citizens. In essence, politicians are supposed to maintain the well being of the nation and its citizens exclusively.
Is it possibly, a conflict of interest for anyone within that political system to have an allegiance with another nation, other than the one they are representing.
*******
For example: Lets say you have an Iranian, who is a practicing Muslim and this person is elected to political office in either country - Can it be argued, that his complete allegiance to the US or the UK, would be questionable?
How could he\she vote for or support sanctions, war or anything that would have a negative impact on their native or secondary allied country.
On the convex of that thought - wouldn't it be safe to assume that, they would take advantage of every opportunity to aid their native or secondary allied country, by voting to provide economic aid, military aid, help to start wars to defend their country, etc ....
All financed on the backs of US\UK citizens.
This is a very, very serious matter - Especially during a deep recession.
The above example clearly would demonstrate a serious and detrimental conflict of interest to the country in which the politician holds political office.
*******
Here's where the topic gets very interesting
*******
The First practicing Jew to Take a Seat in Parliament
It is commonly believed that the first practicing Jew to sit in the House of Commons was Lionel de Rothschild. Technically this may be true, but the first practicing Jew to vote in the House was David Salomons, a cousin to Rothschild. In 1851, in the Greenwich by-election, he was returned as the member for that constituency.
Salomons was a newcomer neither to politics nor to public life. He had stood unsuccessfully for Parliament on no fewer than three previous occasions. In 1837 and 1841 he had unsuccessfully contested Shoreham and Maidstone respectively and in 1847 had failed yet again at Greenwich. And although Rothschild had been elected five times in the decade between 1847 and 1857, he had been denied his seat for his failure to swear the oath of abjuration “on the true faith of a Christian.” Salomons had made clear his objections to this sort of thing before. In 1835, and again in 1844, he had stood for the court of Aldermen of the City of London and while elected in both instances, his objection to the form of oath required meant that he was unable to take his seat.
The question, put to the Commons on the 2nd of July was, "That David Salomons, Esq., is not entitled to vote in this House, or to sit in this House during any Debate, until he shall take the Oath of Abjuration in the form appointed by Law.” Clearly the issue was twofold. The first, and more technical issue, was whether or not the words that Salomons had left out were a necessary part of the oath which he took and by his failure to recite them he made the oath null and void. The second and broader question; and the one which many of those debating the issue hoped to avoid, was whether a practicing Jew should be a member of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, a "Christian" nation.
*******
Since 1845, a total of 34 Jews have served in the US Senate. Judah P. Benjamin was the first practicing Jewish Senator, and would later serve as Confederate Secretary of War and Secretary of State during the Civil War. Rahm Emmanuel serves as Chief of Staff to President Barack Obama. The number of Jews elected to the House rose to an all-time high of 30. Seven Jews have been appointed to the United States Supreme Court.
Currently there are 14 Jews among 100 U.S. Senators: 12 Democrats (Michael Bennet, Barbara Boxer, Benjamin Cardin, Russ Feingold, Dianne Feinstein, Al Franken, Herb Kohl, Frank Lautenberg, Carl Levin, Charles Schumer, Arlen Specter, Ron Wyden), and both of the Senate's independents (Joe Lieberman and Bernie Sanders; both caucus with the Democrats). Two states have two Jewish Senators: Wisconsin (Kohl and Feingold) and California (Feinstein and Boxer).
There are 30 Jews among the 435 U.S. Representatives; 29 are Democrats and one (Eric Cantor) is Republican. In November 2008, Cantor was elected as the House Minority Whip, the first Jewish Republican to be selected for the position.
Dates: 1845 in the US and 1851 in the UK.
*******
The UK officials raised a very valid question "whether a practicing Jew should be a member of the Parliament of the United Kingdom"
This is extremely important in light of events to come - Israel, compliments of the US and UK POLITICIANS, ultimately was voted in the UN, to inherit the land {Palestine} which was controlled by the UK at that time.
*******
Now, look at the economic and military actions of both countries in regards to Israel from 1947 to the present day.
And, this brings up again, the critical question: Should a politician or any individual attempting to hold high office {US or UK} be allowed to have an allegiance with another country ???
To be clear, this isn't Jew hating or Israel hating - The question has to be asked ...
Whose interest are Jewish politicians truly representing ????
How can Jewish politicians go contrary to their belief system and vote for policies that in some way, will ultimately have a negative impact on Israel ????
And, if this is the case, then are US\UK citizens interest being usurped, in order to benefit another country ????
*******
I find it terribly difficult to explain logically, how a US President, during the most severe recession in HISTORY is willingly and knowingly sacrificing the well being of US citizens - while at the same time, being overly concerned with the well being of Israeli citizens.
I cannot for the life of me, understand how a US President, along with Congress and the Senate can push for legislation benefiting another country, while US citizens are losing their savings, their homes, their livelihood, their jobs, their FUTURE during the most severe recession in history !!!!!!!!!
This defies logic!!!!!!!
This issue has to be addressed and the hard questions have to be asked. Because not only is US tax revenue being used to benefit a foreign country during the worst of times, but it is also being used to protect a foreign country.
This is a complete violation of the tax code and undermines the purpose of its collection.
NO US politician should be allowed to have a dual allegiance with another country while in office. Period!!!!!
http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/sh...d.php?t=388989
http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/sh...d.php?t=389015
*******
I would like to raise a serious question and or discussion on the topic, Conflict Of Interest In National Politics. And I would like to focus specifically on two nations, The United States and The United Kingdom.
Here's the question and conversation in a nutshell.
Politicians in both countries control the destiny of their respective nations, maintain the national infrastructure and budget, maintain national defense and disperse revenue gained via taxation for the good of the nation and its citizens. In essence, politicians are supposed to maintain the well being of the nation and its citizens exclusively.
Is it possibly, a conflict of interest for anyone within that political system to have an allegiance with another nation, other than the one they are representing.
*******
For example: Lets say you have an Iranian, who is a practicing Muslim and this person is elected to political office in either country - Can it be argued, that his complete allegiance to the US or the UK, would be questionable?
How could he\she vote for or support sanctions, war or anything that would have a negative impact on their native or secondary allied country.
On the convex of that thought - wouldn't it be safe to assume that, they would take advantage of every opportunity to aid their native or secondary allied country, by voting to provide economic aid, military aid, help to start wars to defend their country, etc ....
All financed on the backs of US\UK citizens.
This is a very, very serious matter - Especially during a deep recession.
The above example clearly would demonstrate a serious and detrimental conflict of interest to the country in which the politician holds political office.
*******
Here's where the topic gets very interesting
*******
The First practicing Jew to Take a Seat in Parliament
It is commonly believed that the first practicing Jew to sit in the House of Commons was Lionel de Rothschild. Technically this may be true, but the first practicing Jew to vote in the House was David Salomons, a cousin to Rothschild. In 1851, in the Greenwich by-election, he was returned as the member for that constituency.
Salomons was a newcomer neither to politics nor to public life. He had stood unsuccessfully for Parliament on no fewer than three previous occasions. In 1837 and 1841 he had unsuccessfully contested Shoreham and Maidstone respectively and in 1847 had failed yet again at Greenwich. And although Rothschild had been elected five times in the decade between 1847 and 1857, he had been denied his seat for his failure to swear the oath of abjuration “on the true faith of a Christian.” Salomons had made clear his objections to this sort of thing before. In 1835, and again in 1844, he had stood for the court of Aldermen of the City of London and while elected in both instances, his objection to the form of oath required meant that he was unable to take his seat.
The question, put to the Commons on the 2nd of July was, "That David Salomons, Esq., is not entitled to vote in this House, or to sit in this House during any Debate, until he shall take the Oath of Abjuration in the form appointed by Law.” Clearly the issue was twofold. The first, and more technical issue, was whether or not the words that Salomons had left out were a necessary part of the oath which he took and by his failure to recite them he made the oath null and void. The second and broader question; and the one which many of those debating the issue hoped to avoid, was whether a practicing Jew should be a member of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, a "Christian" nation.
*******
Since 1845, a total of 34 Jews have served in the US Senate. Judah P. Benjamin was the first practicing Jewish Senator, and would later serve as Confederate Secretary of War and Secretary of State during the Civil War. Rahm Emmanuel serves as Chief of Staff to President Barack Obama. The number of Jews elected to the House rose to an all-time high of 30. Seven Jews have been appointed to the United States Supreme Court.
Currently there are 14 Jews among 100 U.S. Senators: 12 Democrats (Michael Bennet, Barbara Boxer, Benjamin Cardin, Russ Feingold, Dianne Feinstein, Al Franken, Herb Kohl, Frank Lautenberg, Carl Levin, Charles Schumer, Arlen Specter, Ron Wyden), and both of the Senate's independents (Joe Lieberman and Bernie Sanders; both caucus with the Democrats). Two states have two Jewish Senators: Wisconsin (Kohl and Feingold) and California (Feinstein and Boxer).
There are 30 Jews among the 435 U.S. Representatives; 29 are Democrats and one (Eric Cantor) is Republican. In November 2008, Cantor was elected as the House Minority Whip, the first Jewish Republican to be selected for the position.
Dates: 1845 in the US and 1851 in the UK.
*******
The UK officials raised a very valid question "whether a practicing Jew should be a member of the Parliament of the United Kingdom"
This is extremely important in light of events to come - Israel, compliments of the US and UK POLITICIANS, ultimately was voted in the UN, to inherit the land {Palestine} which was controlled by the UK at that time.
*******
Now, look at the economic and military actions of both countries in regards to Israel from 1947 to the present day.
And, this brings up again, the critical question: Should a politician or any individual attempting to hold high office {US or UK} be allowed to have an allegiance with another country ???
To be clear, this isn't Jew hating or Israel hating - The question has to be asked ...
Whose interest are Jewish politicians truly representing ????
How can Jewish politicians go contrary to their belief system and vote for policies that in some way, will ultimately have a negative impact on Israel ????
And, if this is the case, then are US\UK citizens interest being usurped, in order to benefit another country ????
*******
I find it terribly difficult to explain logically, how a US President, during the most severe recession in HISTORY is willingly and knowingly sacrificing the well being of US citizens - while at the same time, being overly concerned with the well being of Israeli citizens.
I cannot for the life of me, understand how a US President, along with Congress and the Senate can push for legislation benefiting another country, while US citizens are losing their savings, their homes, their livelihood, their jobs, their FUTURE during the most severe recession in history !!!!!!!!!
This defies logic!!!!!!!
This issue has to be addressed and the hard questions have to be asked. Because not only is US tax revenue being used to benefit a foreign country during the worst of times, but it is also being used to protect a foreign country.
This is a complete violation of the tax code and undermines the purpose of its collection.
NO US politician should be allowed to have a dual allegiance with another country while in office. Period!!!!!
Comment