It's hard to stand by the First Amendment rights of someone who offers such anti-Semitic Nazi gibberish.

Sorry: Olmert's offer WAS THWARTED by right wing Amnericans ...

Think about Ehud Olmert what you want but his observation that his attempt to offer peace to the Palestinians by right wing Americans sounds rather believable. It's very strange that serious discussions in Israel are completely ignored in your discussions. Large parts of the intelligence and military establishment in Israel are opposed to the strike against Iran and even claim that sanctions are working. But chicken hawks in the US simply ignore such voices and prefer to create their own reality. Sad, sad, sad.

Let me add more voices: The current chief of the Israeli Defense Forces Benny Gantz told Israeli newspaper Haaretz: "I do not believe Iran will decide to develop nuclear weapons" (http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/idf-chief-to-haaretz-i-do-not-believe-iran-will-decide-to-develop-nuclear-weapons-1.426389.html). It's a strange world where generals seem to be "dithering pacifists" ...

I wonder how the "dithering European pacifists" (full disclosure; I'm one of them) fare when Townhall's readership would take notice from the fact that two of Israel's most formidable spies, former Shin Bet security service chief Yuval Diskin and former Mossad chief Meir Dagan recently spoke out AGAINST an Israeli strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. Even more: Dagan said publicly, that the sanctions against Iran are working. One might wonder about politicians like Ehud Olmert who joined them in their critique of Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud barak. But the former heads of the internal and external security agencies (supported also by former National Security Council head Uri Arad)?

It's amazing how the rant about unelected justices impeding the will of the people via judicial review on issues that suit conservatives flops into an impeachable offense when Obama uses the same argument. Both sides tend to show utter disregard for the law. It's judicial activism when it favors the opponent. I wonder: Where are all those principled defenders of the original meaning of the constitution that see Maybury vs. Madison indeed as the first step on the slippery slope to judicial activism. Just wait for Mr. Katz revert to this line of argument when it suits his agenda ...

Of all the reasons for not voting for Romney, and I can think of quite a few, this is the worst. There is no difference to the evangelical pastors claiming that JFK would obey to a "foreign power" in the Vatican. Fortunately, the US electorate didn't buy the argument. And I did not hear a single voice raised against Rick Santorum on those grounds. Thus, what's that idiocy about Mormons? As idiotic as the "Obama is a Muslim" rant.

Tinsldr2 is right, this election is NOT about homosexuality. Yet, I can't help to observe that some people seem to be absolutely incapable to understand a civil libertarian stance where one engages defending rights of the other, not one's own. For example, Liberals Lie writes: "The fact that you admit you are crazy is an indication there is hope for you. [Thanks!] You can drop homosexuality if it makes you miserable, as shown by Dr. Spitzer of Columbia University. Good luck." Apparently, LL didn't read when I wrote of my "lack of a homosexual drive". Is it that difficult? But yes, I'd proudly wear as a badge of honour to be called a homo- or bisexual but, ALAS, it wouldn't be true.

Since I already admitted that I am crazy, I am in a bind. But still: I think that's the difference between people outside of the US and those inside. And there is no craziness in listening to what others have to say. Like it or not: The US can't wing it alone. It is just a statement of fact and there is no glee in stating: You might be able to crush a Panamanian tin pot dictator or a slightly leftie government of a Carribean island, and you can bomb the infrastructure in a country but you CANNOT subdue even a country living in the Middle Ages such as Afghanistan into submission by whatever military might. Iraq ended in Iran's orbit, and there is little you can do about. That's why you need other means; Obama delivered on them.

Indeed, that's a difference, and I think it's salutary that Obama's campaign centers on that.