When Isolationism hides itself as anti-Americanism

There is a debate around the spreading wave of Isolationism which is manifested in an unholy alliance between the Hard Left (which ultimately seeks to end the United States) to the Hard Right (which ultimately seeks to create "Fortress America"). Both of these groups have joined forces to strike against those interests which would weaken their "end game" wishes (for the Left, a world where the U.S. if it exists at all, is hobbled and severely weakened and for the Right, where the U.S. exists alone as an island amidst the chaos of an ever confusing and dangerous world).

Being a blog about Zionism and Progressive / Liberal / Centrist politics, we see this in the Israeli - Palestinian conflict where the Hard Left, those that want to destroy Israel out of some misguided sense of ending "Western Colonialism" and who see Israel as a "White nation" (though it is far from that) in the midst of the Third world, has joined with the Hard Right and those who want to simply annihilate the Jewish people out of their own twisted hatred. And so we see these groups come together in coalition that promotes the anti-Semitic BDS (Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions) movement in an effort to deny the Jewish people their legitimate rights to self determination as it is manifested in the Nation of Israel.

However, this desire goes far beyond advocacy in the Israel / Palestine conflict where both the Jews and Palestinians in the Middle East are pieces in a world wide bid for influence, control of resources, and supremacy. This growing wave of Isolationist thinking threatens not only the very fabric and health of the United States but the fabric of the entire world.

We hear that the world is getting to be a "much smaller place". This is very true. Now, people can talk face to face with those on the other side of the globe from the comfort of their living rooms. Ideas can be transmitted throughout the internet, and data can be shared no matter where we are. We can physically see one another and one anothers environs in a way that has never been possible before.

Because of this, the world is more interconnected than ever before. Things that happen thousands of miles away do affect us. Just look at the rate of environmental damage caused by over use of resources and the concurrent problems that this causes. We are no longer able to isolate ourselves from anyone and we have to come up with global solutions to poverty, the environment, and a host of other problems IF we are too maintain both reasonable standards of living and reasonable National goals.

I do think that National interests can survive and thrive in an ever increasingly globalized world (in fact I think it is imperative that they do). Though that seems counter intuitive to the theory that we need one world government. We don't. While the world needs to act in a more coordinated fashion regarding some of our issues (the environment, poverty, and so forth) there is no way right now that people in individual nations would be able to pull this off in any meaningful day to day manner. We are simply too different and have too many different ways of approaching and solving problems.

To people in al-Qaeda their vision is that of a warlord filled vicious theocratic world, where only those who adhere to their particular form of Islam would wield power and where everyone else would exist to serve them as individuals and their crazed interpretation of Islam in general. To those in corporate America who endorse "Randian Capitalism" the world would be a strict plutocracy where the rich would live in cantons and the rest of the world would be their "resource pool". And with all the iterations in between there is simply no way that humanity could come to any sort of peace agreement on how to run day to day government.

So what prompts this piece? It is due to the fact that I see many people both on the Hard Left (as evidenced by most of the folks - not all but most) at leftist blogsites doing their utmost to spread disinformation regarding the U.S. and demanding that it live up to standards that they would hardly ask of other nations. And when it even comes to discussing other nations, it seems that as long as those nations are anti-U.S. anything they do is ok with the Hard Left. They will excuse all of the things they say they stand for in the name of supporting a nation that stands against the U.S. And by doing so are willing to team up with the most vile elements of the polity to support their cause (example the BDS movement).

I also see the isolationist wing of the Republican party doing the same thing. Unable to think beyond (to them) what seems like the most simple or quick solution they simply say, "let's build a corporate state in the U.S. reminiscent of the Gilded Age and screw everyone else". They simply cannot think out their own little boxes, not realizing that while they are building "Fortress America", forces that are hardly sympathetic to America and our interests gain power. These Rightists think only about the immediacy of an issue and simply don't think about the ramifications of said issue. There is no serious thought that goes into "problem solving".. So we see with the "Repeal Obamacare" folks. All they care about is defeating the President, they care nothing for the long term damage they are causing this nation.

The problem is that both extreme's arguments contain half truths throughout. For the Leftists and their complaints about the NSA, they are generally right. The NSA SHOULD NOT be spying to the extent that it is on American citizens. I get that they want to find out what is happening in the world, and that they are protecting Americans from terror. However, I also get that these powers can easily be misused to create what they like to call "the surveillance state". That said, the NSA and CIA have a responsibility towards protecting American citizens so... this is a problematic issue. However, to compare the U.S. unfavorably to groups like Al-Qaeda and to lionize those who would leak our secrets to foreign nations (Edward Snowden) is far from helpful.

On the Right side, the "Libertarian crew" is right about the fact that we can cut the Defense budget by reducing foreign ventures and use those resources to pay private business at home for development projects. Of course at the same time they need to realize that while we can do that to a degree, we cannot afford to cut ourselves off from the world in a meaningful way and still have a say in our own future due to the fact mentioned previously, that the world is indeed more interconnected and that foreign affairs really do have an impact on our daily lives at macro level.

In the end, one thing that is truly dangerous to the U.S. and the well being of the "free world" is this growing strain of neo-Isolationist thinking. Hamstringing our intelligence sectors will only create a world where America and it's allies (and interests) are threatened. Honestly, the Russians or Chinese certainly have no compunctions regarding the use of any and all tactics to achieve their goals. For the Hard Leftists this is just fine to allow them to thoroughly weaken the U.S. While the Isolationist Hard Right simply doesn't care what other nations do because (and this is sheer idiocy) they think the U.S. can simply "wall itself off" and let the rest of the world burn.

It is important that we do have civilian oversight of our intelligence gathering particularly as it relates to American citizens. Don't take this article as indictment of that. We are a "free nation" because our government has been restrained in its ability to gather information / data on our everyday lives. It is also important that we recognize that "overzealous" gathering of personal data can and often does lead to problematic issue with regards to a "surveillance state". I do not want to live in a nation that monitors my computer usage or my phone records without any kind of just cause.

So.. it is important that we balance our need for privacy with our need for the protections our intelligence sectors provide. What we need here is an honest discussion about how we can best balance the two needs. What we don't need is constant vilification of our nation hidden with rhetoric designed to weaken our nation and its ability to protect its citizens. We don't need those who would propose solutions in a vacuum either supporting or without understanding the nature of our national enemies.

Though these movements currently operate on the fringe, as the Hard Left is no real part of the Democratic Party and the Isolationist Hard Right is only a portion of the Republican Polity, still they represent possible growing threats (as they appeal mainly to the young and idealistic for various reasons), it is important that we understand and expose them for who they are. Of course here in the U.S. they should not be restricted from discussing their viewpoints, but those viewpoints should be exposed for what they really are, an effort to weaken the United States, both at home and/or abroad.

The Numbers are in... More Americans sympathize with Israel

There is a new Gallup poll out regarding Israel, and the numbers are both interesting and positive for Israel.

Here is the release from Gallup

Despite our Presidents love of the Muslim Brotherhood and Democrats and Liberals / Progressives all thinking that "blaming" Israel for all of their own  problems is the way to go (/snark if people are really too dumb to think I believe this nonsense spread by the RJC, ODS Crowd, and their minions), the American people's support / sympathy for Israel is at it's highest levels since the Gulf War of 1991.

As Gallup sums it up:

Bottom Line

Americans' sympathy for Israel is at a high-water mark as President Obama travels there for what is being described as a "maintenance" visit, not a high-stakes effort to restart the Palestinian-Israeli peace process. Consistent with attitudes in the past decade, Republicans are significantly more supportive of Israel than are Democrats, although the majority of all party groups tilt toward Israel.

Younger Americans show less favoritism toward Israel than middle-aged adults and, in particular, seniors; however, they are no more likely to favor the Palestinians. They are simply less anchored about whom they favor. Palestinians receive the highest sympathy from Democrats, liberals, and postgraduates, but even among these, support tops off at 24%.

While it is true that Republicans and Conservatives do "support' Israel more than Democrats and Liberals - still the levels of support for the Palestinian cause amongst Americans is minimal.

Here is the raw data:

Republicans - 78% Israelis, 5 % Palestinians,  3% both, 6% Neither, 7% No Opinion
Democrats - 55% Israelis, 19% Palestinians, 7% both, 10% Neither, 10% Both
Independents - 63% Israelis, 11% Palestinians, 5% both, 15% Neither, 5% Both

Conservatives - 77%, 5% 3% 9% 6%
Liberals - 54%, 24%, 7%, 9 % 10%
Moderates - 58%, 12%, 15%, 7%, 8%

So really, MAJORITIES of both Democrats and Republicans... Liberals and Conservatives sympathize (or show favor to Israel).

Personally I think it is good to see that as Americans we can across the board support or friends and allies in Israel. We may not always agree with what they do, but, it is comforting to know that the Jewish people have a friend in the American Polity and that we can continue to hope that our polity continues to reflect it's friendship with the Israeli people and their continued fight to maintain their self-determination against those that would see them disappear

Republicans Show Us EXACTLY why they should not be in charge

The 2012 election came and went and THANK G-D that not did Mitt Romney not win, BUT, that the Democrats picked up two seats in the Senate as well as eight seats in the house. As we approach the "fiscal cliff" (which really is an over-hyped by both sides term), we get to watch the Republicans show why they truly are the party of C.Montgomery Burns (the cartoon villain on the Simpsons) come to life.

The fact of the matter is that Republicans cannot seem to get their act together no matter what. HERE is example No. # 1 - Mitch McConnell actually FILIBUSTERING HIMSELF. 

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/vfenXNi9HcI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Just watch and listen to what the Senators are saying. They are flabbergasted that McConnell would do this, but, even more flabbergasted that the Republicans are going along with it. This, coming a week after Republicans voted against the U.S. supporting the U.N. treaty on disabled persons. It's incredible, that this clown show now known as the Republican Party has even a modicum of support from anyone. I mean, can one imagine if these people had been put in charge of the White House and the Senate? Holy Moly.... I don't think I would trust these people to wash my car, much less run the most powerful nation on the face of the Earth. It is incredible.

They simply cannot figure out how to govern. It has gotten so bad for them that Rand Paul, (R-Aqua Buddha and son of crazy person Ron Paul) has come up with this gem:

"I have yet another thought on how we can fix this. Why don't we let the Democrats pass whatever they want? ... All the Republicans vote present and let the Democrats raise taxes as high as they want to raise them ... and then make them own the tax increase. And when the economy stalls, when the economy sputters, when people lose their jobs, they know which party to blame."

Now personally, I think this is a great idea. Let's give the President's ideas a chance. Maintenance of the Middle Class Tax cut, coupled with some reasonable Defense Cuts, Real Tax Reform (like eliminating loopholes for companies that ship jobs overseas, or for private corporate jets to name a few) and effective reform like the Affordable Care Act -sure...I am all in favor of that and apparently so are the American people who delivered the President a landslide victory in the Electoral College and a solid four point win 51% - 47% win in the popular vote (OH.. the irony of that 47% number).

I mean here are the numbers on this:

"This is only the second time in Amore than three years that President Obama has broken 50 percent. And voters see Republicans as more likely to be obstructionist, and have less confidence in their ability to come up with the right solution to the nation's financial woes."

American voters say 56 - 38 percent that Obama and congressional Democrats will make a good faith effort to cooperate with congressional Republicans on important issues. By 51 - 43 percent, voters say congressional Republicans will not act in good faith.

So sure... Rand let's do this. Let's give the American people what they want and what we voted for. Take a shot at it. It might actually show that the Republican Party actually stands in support of their country rather than furthering their party.

So how do the Republicans respond.... They seem to be running around like Chickens with their heads cut off. They can't seem to figure out what to do and simply won't accept the data that the election gave them. I mean here is VP nominee Paul Ryan on NOT raising taxes on the wealthy . And as an added bonus goes on to talk about how President Obama really does not have a mandate, despite the fact that he won by 4% of the general populace (and got 51% of the vote), by over 100 electoral votes, the Democrats picked up two seats in the Senate, and Eight seats in a heavily Gerrymandered house (where the Dems. actually got more votes total in the house than Republicans).

As a party, they are simply not fit to lead this country anywhere. So all I can say is thank goodness that these jokers lost the election. America and the world are far better off for it.

Republican Counter Offer on Fiscal Cliff: "Like a Christmas wish list written by kids without access to calculators"

AHAHAHAHA... this is too funny.

Writing at Rachel Maddow's Blog, Steve Benen nails the Republicans as they try to drive the nation off "the fiscal cliff" all so that the wealthiest Americans will not see their incomes after the first $ 250,000 be taxed by a mere 3% more. The greed we are witnessing here is incredible. As Benen writes:

"So, what's the pitch? Under this proposal, Republicans would keep all of the Bush-era tax rates, but accept $800 billion in new revenue. How? Through "through pro-growth tax reform that closes special-interest loopholes and deductions while lowering rates." 

From there, the GOP leaders want to cut $600 billion from Medicare and Medicaid; cut $300 billion from mandatory programs; cut $200 billion by changing the consumer price index; and then cut another $300 billion in further discretionary spending.

To call this a "counteroffer" is to strip the word of meaning. Under the GOP plan, Republicans get the more than $1 trillion in spending cuts Obama already gave them; Republicans get the entitlement cuts they want; Republicans get hundreds of billions of dollars in additional cuts to programs they haven't identified; and Republicans get all of the Bush-era tax rates they've prioritized.

This isn't a "counteroffer"; it's a Christmas wish list written by kids without access to calculators."

And he is right. The loopholes that the Republicans are talking about would actually more deeply impact the Middle Class than the wealthy.

President Obama is right here to dismiss the Republican offer and it's silliness. It's nothing but a way to screw the poorer end of our society so that Rich can enjoy an ever widening income gap.

Paul Krugman over at the NY Times does a great job breaking this down further.

Here’s where we are right now: As his opening bid in negotiations, Mr. Obama has proposed raising about $1.6 trillion in additional revenue over the next decade, with the majority coming from letting the high-end Bush tax cuts expire and the rest from measures to limit tax deductions. He would also cut spending by about $400 billion, through such measures as giving Medicare the ability to bargain for lower drug prices. 

 So what are Republicans offering as an alternative? They say they want to rely mainly on spending cuts instead. Which spending cuts? Ah, that’s a mystery. In fact, until late last week, as far as I can tell, no leading Republican had been willing to say anything specific at all about how spending should be cut.

The veil lifted a bit when Senator Mitch McConnell, in an interview with The Wall Street Journal, finally mentioned a few things — raising the Medicare eligibility age, increasing Medicare premiums for high-income beneficiaries and changing the inflation adjustment for Social Security. But it’s not clear whether these represent an official negotiating position — and in any case, the arithmetic just doesn’t work. 

Start with raising the Medicare age. This is, as I’ve argued in the past, a terrible policy idea. But even aside from that, it’s just not a big money saver, largely because 65- and 66-year-olds have much lower health costs than the average Medicare recipient. When the Congressional Budget Office analyzed the likely fiscal effects of a rise in the eligibility age, it found that it would save only $113 billion over the next decade and have little effect on the longer-run trajectory of Medicare costs. 

Increasing premiums for the affluent would yield even less; a 2010 study by the budget office put the 10-year savings at only about $20 billion. 

Changing the inflation adjustment for Social Security would save a bit more — by my estimate, about $185 billion over the next decade. But put it all together, and the things Mr. McConnell was talking about would amount to only a bit over $300 billion in budget savings — a fifth of what Mr. Obama proposes in revenue gains.

In the end the Mitt Romney and the Republicans ran on a platform dedicated to screwing Middle Class and poorer Americans financially, and sacrificing them on some Randian alter of trickle down theory in hopes of maintaining their core constituency's sense of entitlement. It wasn't the Democrats running on giving things away, (as Mitt claimed) it was the Republicans who ran on giving out whatever their big business backers asked for.

In my mind what is best here is that the President learned from his mistakes of the previous years (and the disastrous debt ceiling negotiations of last year). He is taking the "fight" outside of the Beltway and directly to the American People, and bless him for that. The American people need to see just how the Republicans will do just about anything so that the 2% doesn't have to pay one dime more in taxes and they don't care who they take down.

I know that my vote for President Obama was a good vote and I feel a lot better seeing this and knowing that if the President sticks to this, America is truly on it's way back.

PZ PREDICTIONS FOR ELECTION 2012

Ok... Six Months ago I diaried this here and I am going to stick with predictions here on Election Eve.

Here goes...

Popular Vote:

Candidates going either way 49.5% vs. 49%

What do I base this on.... I realize that President Obama has the RV lead AND I realize that the LV voter numbers are skewed Republican in this particular race. That said, I believe that voting shenanigans (and I include vote fixing on machines) in Ohio, and Florida will simply change dynamics there. I think they will change dynamics enough to throw those states (yep, I am painting Ohio Red) to Mittens. It will simply be stealing votes and noting more. If people in Ohio had a fair shake I think the state would reflect the polls but they don't and their Republican Secretary of State will make sure that people don't have that.

As for Florida, Governor Rick Scott treats voting in the same way as Kim Il Jong did. As we have seen, they are running things like it was a "third world nation". Personally, I just don't see this one breaking our way with him in that seat and his administration running the show down there.

THEN finally, I think Hurricane Sandy will depress voter turnout in NY and NJ. I think the President STILL wins handily there but, I just think the after effects of the Hurricane will drop Democratic voter numbers.
If there were no Republican shenanigans in Florida or Ohio I would gladly predict the vote totals to go hard for the President but I just don't see it at this point. I think it will be within .5% either way.

Electoral Vote:

I think it ends up 272-266 in favor of President Obama... .

How do I get there. I believe the President carries all of his base states PLUS Nevada, Colorado, New Hampshire, Iowa, and Wisconsin. I give Virginia to the Repubs, along with N.C., Florida, and the too be stolen Ohio.

I believe that while the Republicans have turned out strong in early voting in Colorado, I think people underestimate the Latino vote and what that can do there. Given the President's superior ground game, I believe that this will be enough to tip the scales to him.

I fully understand that the Ohio scenario seems wacky but given the events of 2000 (in Florida) and 2004 (in Ohio), I think we have a Republican party that will stoop to any low to steal an election and frankly that no one will do anything about it. HOWEVER, I don't think that they will be able to steal this one because the President is too strong in all of those other states.

As for the Senate:

I go with my one of my favorite politicians Elizabeth Warren to win her race. I think that Claire McCaskill wins her race in a nail biter against Todd "legitimate rape" Akin, BUT I think that Joe Donnelly loses to Richard "Rape is just G-d's plan" Mourdock because people are just that stupid (if you doubt me just look at the fact that there are Rep.'s Bachman, West, Walsh just to name a few).

All in all I think the Dems. hold the Senate at 50-48 (with the independents caucusing with the Dems.)
Now hopefully I am wrong and this is a big win for President Obama. BUT in all of my years (all 50 of them) I have seen things I list that make me a bit less optimistic for this election season. STILL, I think the President will win the election and I would be surprised if he didn't. I do though, think it will be a nail biter.
There are my predictions... What are yours?

PREDICTION TIME.....

Cross Posted at Daily Kos

Now that the Republican Primaries are all but over, a friend of mine and I were discussing the 2012 Election. His opinion was that the President was going to crush Mitt Romney  in a landslide. He put the popular vote at 56% President Obama - 43% Romney.  Needless to say, skeptic that I am, I disagreed saying that I thought the vote would be close and that EITHER President Obama OR Romney could win but, that it would be 50.1 - 51% vs. 49.9% - 49%. 

Now why do I say that? Well, even though I live in a Blue State (Thank G-d!) and I live in the Bluest of Blue areas (Doubly Thank G-d!!!!)  - SF Bay Area, I do hear from people that also live here and that are somewhat normal people (though maybe not so much) that they would vote (and I quote) for a "potted plant" before they ever vote for President Obama. Now, if I am hearing this here, I can only imagine what I would be hearing in many areas of the country that are not so liberal or progressive. Many friends from my past (Facebook) and so forth are all looking at voting Republican as well. Hardly a reasonable place to form an opinion but hey.... it's what I have. 

I think that many people underestimate the power of Obama Derangement Syndrome (ODS). It is real and there are millions and millions of Americans spurred on by the hate spread on Faux News OR on the subtle BUT  Romney supporting MSM that do blame the President for many of our woes AND ignore the damage done by a congress of "do-nothing Republicans". I also think many people underestimate the effect that the money freed up by Citizens United will have on the election. President Obama will be able to raise money (as he showed in 2008) but now he facing an opponent that can and will out raise him. Billions of dollars buys a boat load of votes and Mitt Romney will have more than a billion  dollars to play with in this election. 

ALSO, Mitt has Karl Rove, Roger Ailes with his entire TV channel (a highly rated one) in his back pocket), and much of the Main Stream Media plugging his side of the story. I think that the combination of Money, and Media Power will work strongly in Romney's favor. Oh and to add some CT in there (although this has been more than proven), don't forget various voting tricks that Republicans have traditionally played including things such as passage of successful voter suppression laws, Gerrymandering (though to be fair BOTH sides do that), and voting machine "calibration" errors.

ANYWAY - Let's have some fun with this and put ourselves on record for this election. You all see what I am saying. In November you can come back and say... "Man, what the hell were you thinking????" or you can say "Pretty darn close there pal". Either way, I am willing to put this out there. 

What do you think? 

Right Now  - Intrade has the President with a 60.7% of winning re-election

Jewish voters and Republicans - Hype at it's Worst

Lately, those of us that follow these things have been hearing non-stop about how Republicans are posting huge gains with Jewish American voters. We keep hearing Obama Derangement Syndrome (ODS) Sufferers telling us how the Democratic Party is "Bleeding" Jewish voters and how the Republicans are surging in our polity. Now, personally, while I have seen some uptick in disappointment with President Obama in parts of the Jewish Polity, I have certainly NOT seen a groundswell of reversal of Jewish Political support for the President.

However, that has not stopped the Right Wing, and their ODS drones, from trying to hype their narrative of Jewish Support for the Republican Party. In fact, this hype has even been picked up by Israeli Papers and spread... BUT is this true? Let's look at the facts.

First of all the Pew voters poll in 2011 (a poll with at 6.5% margin of error) indicated a +9% rise in Republican or Leaning Republican tendency in American Jewish voters. In 2008 the Pew Poll, showed that 72% of Jewish Voters leaned Democratic while only 20% leaned Republican. In 2012 the Poll shows that 65% of Jewish Voters lean Democratic while 29% lean Republican. NOW, in the election it turned out that 78% of Jewish Americans voted Democratic. Now in the 2011 poll the representative sample size was only 330 people - about HALF of the number asked in 2008 (645 people), so there is that. In the AJC poll of 2011 (a better indicator) there was a 9% decrease in identified Democratic Jewish voters BUT also a 1% DECREASE in Republican voters with the 10% gain of voters then saying they were Independents.

But even more telling that this is pure hype is the fact that according to this years Pew Poll and last years Pew Poll the Republicans have actually LOST GROUND amongst Jewish voters. In 2010 the poll said 33% of Jewish voters leaned Republican while 60% leaned Democrat. SO in effect the Democratic party has regained 5% points of it's support and the Republicans lost 4% points of their support in just the last year.

SO, in the polls... is the Republican party really picking up a "groundswell" of Jewish support. Maybe not so much.

But now even more bad news for the ODS'ers and their Right Wing support group. In Florida, a key state with a large Jewish voting bloc - Jewish voters were only 1% of the Republican Primary vote. In 2008, they were 3%. THEN in the Nevada Caucuses, where Jewish voters were only 2% of the Republican Primary vote in 2008, guess what % they were in 2012... Wait for it.... Wait for it..... 2% - whoa, now there is a "groundswell".

Really all this is, typical Rovian re-definition of reality. Has the Democratic Party lost some of it's influence with Jewish voters? To date, yes it has, some. Will 78% of the Jewish voting population vote for President Obama again, I doubt it. But I would be willing to bet that the number of Jewish Democratic voters will still be higher than 70% (personally I see around 72-73% as a number).

Given the facts, that the President and the Democratic Party have been stalwart friends to the Jewish people and the Jewish State of Israel it seems to me that the only reason for this drop off is that the Party has not done a great job in outreach to Jewish voters and has not touted their strong, strong record of friendship and advocacy for both the Jewish community as well as support for Israel. This they need to do, and if they do it I have no doubt they will pick up more Jewish votes.

Republicans Betray Israel and Jewish People, Seek One State Solution to Conflict in the Middle East

The RNC has continued to show how the Republican Party is no friend to either the Jewish People or the State of Israel. In their latest move the RNC has done the unthinkable and endorsed the One State Solution as a plan for Peace in the Middle East.

Here is the text, plain as day:

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the members of this body support Israel in their natural and God-given right of self-governance and self-defense upon their own lands, recognizing that Israel is neither an attacking force nor an occupier of the lands of others; and that peace can be afforded the region only through a united Israel governed under one law for all people.

AND when questioned by blogger Mitchell Plitkin about it had this to say:

Me: Dear Ms. Costa,[...] I just wanted to check with you that this was in fact an officially adopted RNC resolution. Can you please let me know? Thanks.
Costa: Yes it was adopted unanimously by the RNC last Friday at our winter meeting in New Orleans. Cindy

The text of the resolution is as follows:

AN RNC RESOLUTION TO COMMEND THE NATION OF ISRAEL FOR ITS RELATIONS WITH THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

WHEREAS, Israel has been granted her lands under and through the oldest recorded deed as reported in the Old Testament, a tome of scripture held sacred and reverenced by Jew and Christian, alike, as the acts and words of God; and

WHEREAS, as the Grantor of said lands, God stated to the Jewish people in the Old Testament; in Leviticus, Chapter 20, Verse 24:  “Ye shall inherit their land, and I will give it unto you to possess it, a land that floweth with milk and honey”; and

WHEREAS, God has never rescinded his grant of said lands; and

WHEREAS, along with the grant of said lands to the Jewish people, God provided for the non-Jewish residents of the land in commanding that governance must be in one law for all without drawing distinction between Jewish and non-Jewish citizens, as contained in Leviticus 24:22, and

WHEREAS, the Nation of Israel declared its independent control and governance of said lands on May 14, 1948, with the goal of re-establishing their God-given lands as a homeland for the Jewish people; and

WHEREAS, the United States of America, having been the first country to recognize Israel as an independent nation and as Israel’s principal Mideast ally, has enjoyed a close and mutually beneficial relationship with Israel and her people; and

WHEREAS, indeed, Israel is the United States of America’s greatest friend in the Mideast; and

WHEREAS, the roots of Israel and the roots of the United States of America are so intertwined that it is difficult to separate one from the other under the word and protection of almighty God; and

WHEREAS, there are those in the Middle East who have sought to destroy Israel from its inception as anation; and

WHEREAS, those same enemies of Israel also seek to destroy the United States of America; and

WHEREAS, the United States of America and the nation of Israel have enjoyed cordial and mutually beneficial relations since 1948, a friendship that should continues to strengthen with each passing year.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Republican Nation Committee that the committee by this resolution commends the nation of Israel for its relations with the United States of America.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the members of this body support Israel in their natural and God-given right of self-governance and self-defense upon their own lands, recognizing that Israel is neither an attacking force nor an occupier of the lands of others; and that peace can be afforded the region only through a united Israel governed under one law for all people.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and Senate Leadership and each of the legislatures of the states within the United States of America with the request and recommendation of this body that a similar resolution to that stated herein be proposed within their respective bodies.

And there you have it ladies and gentlemen... the One State Solution. Now, one can safely assume that the Republican version of the One State Solution and the Palestinian version of the One State Solution are very different takes on the same thing.

The Republican version calls for something similar to what Israeli Rightists, in the YESHA and National Union envisage for a One State Solution. I assumes that Israel will annex all of the territory that is the West Bank of Jordan and incorporate the Palestinian population there into it's own. Strangely enough this is also something called for by the hard left of the Palestinian polity though for very different reasons. BUT, the idea behind the Republican Resolution is to say in short: "G-d gave all the land to Israel, we like Israel, so all the land is theirs to do as they see fit".

So how is this a "betrayal" of Israel? Only in that it would destroy Israel in almost every way. Let's look at some scenario's:

Scenario One: Israel annexes all of the West Bank and Gaza Formally.

Assuming that Israel then absorbs the Palestinian population the demographics of Israel change radically. Currently Israel as a nation is 75.2% Jewish and 20.5% Arab. Israel's Jewish Population stands at  about 5,865,300 individuals and Israel's Arab Population stands at about 1,597,300 individuals. If one includes the West Bank, and Gaza, the demographic mixture changes to: 5,749,000 Arabs/Palestinians and 5,865,300 Jews. Now current birthrates favor a quick transition from Israel being a Jewish State to becoming a Palestinian State with a large Jewish minority. Given that Israel was created to be the State and National Homeland of the Jewish People this makes the future of Israel problematic.

Remember the RNC Resolution calls one law for all people without distinction. So Israel, as a democracy would then become a Palestinian Majority State. Just how long does anyone think that a Palestinian Majority State would be run as the National Homeland and State of the Jewish People? Five minutes... Ten minutes...

ALSO, Hoq' ha shvut - IF, the Jewish Law of Return (a cornerstone law regarding Israel) would still be in effect then Palestinian Right of Return would also have to be in effect. That would reduce the Jewish % of the population even further.

FURTHERMORE... No has asked the Palestinians if they even want this situation though secular, leftist Palestinians and their supporters have this as their agenda for the obvious end result.

Scenario Two: Israel annexes only the West Bank and leaves Gaza on it's own.

This would mean that he total population shifts to about 5,865,000 Jews and 4,149,000 Palestinians then living in Israel with 1.6 million Palestinians STILL living in Gaza.

First, off while this would maintain a Jewish majority, that figure would go from a 75% - 21% split to 58% - 42% split. Given Birthrates and immigration, that demographic would be shifting rapidly.

All of this of course does not even take into account that the Palestinians are not being asked if they agree with this. In all honesty, I can't really see that in the case of this scenario. Though Palestinians are not (as a polity) currently favorable to Hamas, they do favor unification for their polity and do consider Gazans as Palestinians. A population split like this almost guarantees civil war. And the fact that majorities in either polities reject this notion, this is a recipe for disaster.

Scenario Three: Meir Kahane's Dream Come True

NOW... let's say the Republicans don't really mean this and they mean to say... This land is all Jewish, then what happens to the people of the West Bank and Gaza Strip? Does Israel simply move them? Ethnically cleanse them from their homes? Where do the Palestinians go? Do they go to the already established State of Jordan (as Arye Eldad of National Union proposes)?

What would doing that do the character of the State of Israel as a "light unto nations" or as a Modern Western Democracy as was envisioned by it's founders? Does that "light unto nations" mean driving millions of people out of their homes? OF COURSE NOT!

Not too mention that it would set off a regional war that would threaten to widen into World War III. The second Israel started to forcibly transfer population, the surrounding nations (and I believe Russia) would immediately take action. At BEST the E.U. would put full economic sanctions on Israel, and I cannot see how the U.S. population would tolerate this.

Should the population NOT be transferred but just decide to annex the territory and keep the population as less than citizens then the Republicans would be obligated to take action against Israel as this would run counter to their insistence that "One Law" would apply to all.

Oh and for those out there who really want to channel Rabbi Kahane and Kach... Jordan is not Palestine. It was recognized as a separate nation and NOT part of the mandate early on. And Jordan currently is really Israel's last friend in the region. Israeli and American Rightist calls to get Jordan recognized as the homeland of the Palestinians (which it is not) is the fastest way to completely destroy that peace treaty. A peace treaty that has greatly benefited both sides.

Here is a key passage from Israel's Declaration of Establishment:

THE STATE OF ISRAEL will be open for Jewish immigration and for the Ingathering of the Exiles; it will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.

ON THE OTHER SIDE.... President Barak Obama and the Democratic Party fully supports the traditional American position of Two States for Two Peoples (and rightly so). Both sides need to have their legitimate rights to self determination recognized. The Jewish People in Israel and the Palestinian people in Palestine. The Two State solution is the only possibly peaceful way forward (and that is not guaranteed with the level of militancy that exists on both sides at this time) and while it may not be ideal for either side it is the best option for both peoples.

Given this declaration by the Republicans anyone who thinks that voting for them is better for than voting for proven friend of the Jewish people and Israel, our President Barak Obama, needs to have their heads closely examined. This Republican declaration is a straight up call for the destruction of Israel and a blow to the soul of the Jewish people.

Marco Rubio Kisses Reality and History Good-Bye

At work, my ultra-conservative, ultra evangelical religious boss who has said: "I would vote for Satan before voting for Barak Obama", sent me an email today with the subject line: This is why we don’t have money-your people have to spend to protect their constituency!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.
In that email, what can only be described as a sharp departure from history/reality is a copy of an article from Human Events that can only be described as laughable. Amongst the claims made by Rubio are that the President "failed to lead" and is making America a "deadbeat nation".

Here is the letter from Sen. Rubio in it's entirety. In it he makes a number of ridiculous claims. The first of course is:

..."you have made it a routine part of your job to ask for more room to spend without any plan to reduce the debt"

That gets a huge HUH?????

Let's see the President has been talking about tons of ways to reduce the debt from simple methods such as letting the Bush tax cuts expire to far more complex programs. It is the Republicans who have tirelessly worked to block the President and the Democrats from even enacting compromise plans. YET, now Senator Rubio has the nerve to say that the President has not proposed ways to reduce the debt. Perhaps the good Senator missed this nifty little piece of information: Obama's Debt Reduction Plan: $ 3 trillion in savings, half from Tax Revenue

Combined with his call this month for $450 billion in new stimulus, the proposal represents a more populist approach to confronting the nation’s economic travails than the compromises he advocated earlier this summer.

Obama will propose new taxes on the wealthy, a special new tax for millionaires, and eliminating or scaling back a variety of loopholes and deductions, officials say. About half of the tax savings would come from the expiration next year of the George W. Bush administration tax cuts for the wealthy.

But the president won’t call for any changes in Social Security, officials say, and is seeking less-aggressive changes to Medicare and Medicaid than previously considered. He will propose $320 billion in health-care savings but will not include raising the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67, officials said.

Any reduction in Medicare benefits would not begin until 2017, they said. Other cuts in domestic spending would bring the total spending savings to $580 billion. About $1 trillion in savings is also expected from winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Oh well... so much for no plan. Oh wait... Rubio goes on to say that he will oppose any plan to raise the debt ceiling unless it is accomplished by a "serious plan" which in short says... "no tax raises on the rich, just whack the Poor and Middle Class". Somehow Rubio doesn't understand that the "Job Creators" who have the lowest taxes in history ARE STILL NOT creating jobs despite having those lowest taxes. It's an incredible disconnect from reality.

Then in a further departure he has this to say:

..."you failed to lead and punted the tough decisions, and in doing so, our credit rating was reduced for the first time in history".

Well one can realistically say that the President could have done a better job as a "leader" however, one cannot blame him for the Republicans holding the American people and economy hostage so that their 1% base can become richer, and richer and eventually wipe out the New Deal.

Oh and as far as the credit rating thing, first of all Senator Rubio missed that part of that downgrade by S&P was based on a $ 2 trillion mistake:

S&P initially made a $2-trillion miscalculation in its economic projections, which administration officials noticed Friday afternoon when the firm shared its analysis with them before publicly releasing it, said a person familiar with the situation who requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter.

But S&P would not agree to change its rating or take more time to do a new analysis, the person said.

AND.... of course the downgrade cited the political hostage taking of the issue by Republicans:

“The statutory debt ceiling and the threat of default have become political bargaining chips in the debate over fiscal policy. Despite this year’s wide-ranging debate, in our view, the differences between political parties have proven to be extraordinarily difficult to bridge, and, as we see it, the resulting agreement fell well short of the comprehensive fiscal consolidation program that some proponents had envisaged until quite recently.”

But let's just get one other point of "Marco's Flight of Fantasy"...

....“more and more people have come to believe that America is becoming a deadbeat nation.”

And I guess the way one dispells the notion of being a "Deadbeat" is to default on debt.

Sure....

Welcome to the 2012 Republican party where "Reality goes to take a break".

Anyway, Please join me in encouraging President Obama to show the leadership that Rubio insists on. Let's make sure while our debt ceiling is raised, and the proper revenue enhancements such as making the 1% pay their fair share, and ending corporate welfare and loopholes along with other debt reducing stragies are employed. The people of the U.S. support this Mr. President and Sen. Rubio is crying out for you to lead, well... let's do just that (and then watch the Republicans cry like little babies about "too much leadership").