Yet Another Anti-Israel Person Outs Self As Crazy

You can just set your watch by it.  The sequence of events is always like this:

1) A semi-notable person comes out with some anti-Israel speech or act

2) Anti-Israel idiots jizz all over themselves and the rest of the internet with praise for the person

3) The person then demonstrates that they are insane and racist

4) Anti-Israel idiots are silent

The most recent example of this cycle completing is Alice Walker.

Alice Walker is the semi-notable author of The Color Purple (which, ironically, was turned into a major motion picture by none other than Steven Speilberg).  Last year she announced that she would not let that book be translated into Hebrew, boycotting not just a country but an entire language.  She has also stated that she believes that Israel is "worse" than the Jim Crow South, which of course was trumpeted loudly by the usual Useful Idiots in the usual forums.   

So now that steps 1 and 2 have happened, like clockwork it is time for Alice Walker to say something insane and racist.  And on cue...

If you don't immediately understand this rant don't waste too much energy, I'll explain it after.  Here's what she said:

I have been dragging along David Icke’s monumental book: Human Race Get Off Your Knees for the last month.  It has been on my lap as I sat; been propped against pillows as I laid down; followed me to bathroom and poolside; and been, in fact, a formidable companion over these past several weeks.  It is a massive book, and requires complete attention.  Even so, some of it is hard to grasp.  I have felt sorely regretful that my science foundation is so…nil.  I remember that in high school the broken microscope we inherited from the white high school (they got a science lab) did permit each of us in our large class a single glimpse of, I think it was, an enlarged cell of something.  It was pretty amazing,but there it was: my introduction to something David is telling us that is really worlds away from this.

What I was remembering was how [Malcolm X] called our oppressors “blue eyed devils.” Now who could that have been?  Well, we see them here in David Icke’s book as the descendants of the reptilian race that landed on our sweet planet the moment they could get a glimpse of it through the mist that used to cover it (before there was a moon).  No kidding.  Deep breath!  Yes, before there was a moon! (Oh, I love the moon; can I keep it? Please?).  Anyway, there they came, these space beings (we’re space beings too, of course, not to forget that).  But they looked…. different than us.  And they were.
They wanted gold and they wanted slaves to mine it for them.  Now gosh, who does this remind us of?  I only am asking.  You do the work.  Apparently their own planet needed this metal to continue its, apparently, long life.  Credo Mutwa, Zulu shaman – and I am on my knees here in gratitude that he held on long enough to tell us about this – calls them the Chitauri, which has become my favorite word of all time (well, of this time that I’m learning all this): my partner and I go around saying Oh, Chitauri, whenever we get a glimpse of one or two of the Chitauri offspring, aka Illuminati bloodline families and their puppets, on the telly.  It’s quite the stress reliever, just knowing what we’re looking at.  And I like saying “telly” too, because it sounds so English and David Icke-esque.  Truthfully our “telly” is our laptops.

What she is referring to in this barely coherent belch?  The most obvious part is the "Illuminati" conspiracy theory, and general praise for David Icke, who is probably the most insane conspiracy peddler around and literally believes that the world is ruled by alien lizards.  Just on the basis of the endorsement of Icke alone, Walker has revealed herself to be an insane person with no credibility,

But the other nonsense I detect, especially with the Malcolm X and "blue eyed devils" reference in the context of spaceships, is the old Nation Of Islam tale that the white man was genetically engineered 6000 years ago by an evil scientist named "Yakub" who lived on the island of Patmos.  While Yakub's creation will rule on Earth for 6000 years, true black master race will come back from space in the motherships.

(Side note:  I remember first reading about this tall tale of Yakub when we had to read The Autobiography of Malcolm X in high school.  I thought there is no way that anyone actually believes that, but alas, they do.  It was my first in a lifetime of encounters with far left anti-science lunacy.)

It is difficult to say whether Walker is explicitly endorsing the Yakub fable or simply giving it an approving nostalgic nod.  Either way, and when combined with the other nonsense like the praise for David Icke and his lizard people, it certainly outs her as a deranged idiot.  Which of course is what one has to be to say things like Israel is worse than the Jim Crow South.

Will she remain a hero to the anti-Israel set who couldn't praise her enough yesterday, or be dropped like a ton of bricks like they tried to do with Gilad Atzmon.  Time will tell, but at this point all we have from David Harris Gershon and his fellow travelers is the customary silence. 

The REAL Benghazi Scandal

Seems like there indeed a Benghazi Scandal, just that it is not quite the one the Republicans and their goofball supporters were claiming.

See, the Republicans and those that suffer from Obama Derangement Syndrome (and can’t help themselves), were jumping up and down screeching from the rafters that what happened in Benghazi was one of the all time great failures by an administration to protect it’s foreign service workers and diplomats. Then they compounded this lie by trying (in a classic case of projection) that the administration politicized the response to the attack in order to enhance it’s chances for re-election in the 2012 Presidential election.

Well it does seem there was some politicization of the attack, yet this politicization of the attack came not from Democrats but from Republicans and that it was Republicans who shamefully used the deaths of Ambassador Stevens and three other diplomatic personnel as ways to not only try to win the November election but also have cynically used these deaths to increase their own fund raising, disrupt President Obama’s second term agenda, and take the public’s eyes off of the fact that these people simply refuse to govern responsibly.

In all seriousness, how can Republicans and their supporters claim be so up in arms when many of the same critics of the Obama administration simply sat on their hands, during the Bush Administration when there were thirteen (yep, that’s thirteen) attacks on consular and diplomatic services which were more deadly than Benghazi. I mean, how can one see that (and the incidents which occurred) and not say that this entire clown show (and I use this term because really… that is what it is), is NOT a partisan political effort. Had these folks been outraged to these levels during these previous incidents I would not complain about this obviously partisan attack, but, they weren’t. When Republicans were in charge apparently these failures didn’t warrant this kind of poutrage.

Then, as if this is not enough, Republicans and their goofy supporters started screaming that this was a cover-up on a scale larger than Watergate. Ok, now this should give everyone pause to consider the pure partisan hatred expressed by this charge. Watergate was a scandal because the President of the United States actually ordered a Criminal Break-in of Democratic Party Headquarters. In Watergate you had the President of the U.S. actually ordering an illegal activity.

In Benghazi, you had failures by the State Department to adequately provide security for a consular mission in the middle of a war-torn and chaotic area. The President did not order Ambassador Stevens to Benghazi, the Ambassador decided to go on his own. The White House did not orchestrate a terror attack on the consulate. In no way did the White House or the Administration do anything even bordering on illegal as did the Nixon White House during Watergate.

BUT further than that, the Republicans and their charges were so worked up into a frothy state that they then went on to produce “leaked” emails saying that the White House actually orchestrated a change in talking points to eliminate all references to involvement by al-Qaeda and that they did this to knowingly deceive the public. They maintain that the President had stated that they had “defeated” al-Qaeda and felt that if word of an al-Qaeda attack had gotten out before the election it would have meant trouble for the President’s re-election efforts.

As one sufferer of Obama Derangement Syndrome stated:

“The Obama administration then lied about lying through White House spokesmen, Jay Carney, who insisted that the White House did not force any substantive changes to the CIA talking points which originally sourced the attack to Islamists.”

Unfortunately for the Republicans, it turns out that these comments aren’t quite true and by the term “aren’t quite true” I mean that they are outright lies.

First of all the President when discussing al-Qaeda worldwide never claimed (to my knowledge) that they were utterly defeated. He has made the claim (and rightly so) that in Af-Pak that al-Qaeda has been weakened and that their command structure has been severely compromised but he did not say they were defeated (as has been claimed):

Here is President Obama in 2011 about al-Qaeda - 

In announcing Osama bin Laden"s death Sunday night, President Barack Obama said U.S. military and counterterrorism professionals have "made great strides” in the effort to "disrupt, dismantle and defeat" al-Qaida.

But terrorism experts, U.S. officials and Obama himself say that despite progress in capturing or killing key al-Qaida leaders, the group is still a force in international terrorism.

"There's no doubt that al-Qaida will continue to pursue attacks against us. We must –- and we will— remain vigilant at home and abroad,” Obama said. "...The cause of securing our country is not complete."

AND now it turns out that claims that the White House orchestrated a CIA cover-up… OHOH it turns out that those “leaks” quoted by Republicans were actually FABRICATIONS of emails created by… the Republicans themselves. CBS News is Reporting:

“The Benghazi attack is a political controversy. Republicans claim the administration watered down the facts in talking points given to U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice for television appearances while Obama was running for re-election. Republicans on Capitol Hill claimed they found proof in White House emails that they leaked to reporters last week. It turns out some of the quotes were wrong.

Republicans have charged that the State Department under Hillary Clinton was trying to protect itself from criticism. The White House released the real emails late Wednesday.”

Apparently the wording of emails from Victoria Nuland and Ben Rhodes were altered to say different things than what the Republicans claimed and that CBS found:

“The Benghazi attack is a political controversy. Republicans claim the administration watered down the facts in talking points given to U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice for television appearances while Obama was running for re-election. Republicans on Capitol Hill claimed they found proof in White House emails that they leaked to reporters last week. It turns out some of the quotes were wrong.

Republicans have charged that the State Department under Hillary Clinton was trying to protect itself from criticism. The White House released the real emails late Wednesday….”

…the Republican version quotes Nuland discussing, "The penultimate point is a paragraph talking about all the previous warnings provided by the Agency (CIA) about al-Qaeda's presence and activities of al-Qaeda."
The actual email from Nuland says: "The penultimate point could be abused by members to beat the State Department for not paying attention to Agency warnings."

The CIA agreed with the concerns raised by the State Department and revised the talking points to make them less specific than the CIA's original version, eliminating references to al Qaeda and affiliates and earlier security warnings. There is no evidence that the White House orchestrated the changes.

This story pretty much wipes out the claims the Republicans and their supporters have made regarding any sort of a cover-up.

The bottom line is that no matter what the truth is, Republicans and their long suffering supporters just can’t accept the truth. They continue even in the face of evidence to the contrary to simply ignore reality and rather, just blindly spout talking points. Is that a scandal in itself? Certainly not, that is just plain and simple stupidity.

The real scandal here is two-fold.

The First is that the Republicans actually altered emails and then convened a House investigation based on these altered emails. Simply put, they lied about the content of the emails, fraudulently changed that content and then have wasted taxpayer funds in a blatantly partisan attack on the President of the United States and why, just so they could increase Fund Raising for their members AND so that they could disrupt on going Administration efforts to govern this nation. I do believe that deceiving the American public like this should be investigated and those responsible for this should be held accountable.

Second, once again this shows why no one can take criticism by Republicans or their ODS suffering drones seriously. I mean despite the fact that they are constantly re-buffed by reality, they continue to soldier on in a fantasy world driven only by hatred of President Barack Obama and the fact that in the last election they were soundly defeated. And more over, this hatred has led to the Republicans completely abrogating their duties to the American people as the controlling party of the House of Representatives. They simply refuse to deal with the problems facing our nation and instead are focusing on useless legislation like pointless vote after vote after vote on repealing the Affordable Healthcare Act, or refusing to even institute background checks on certifiable lunatics and criminals so that these people can buy weapons.

This is the real scandal about Benghazi – a blatant political attempt to undermine the President and the Government of the United States through lies and forgery by Republicans and their operatives. Now that this scandal is coming to light it will be interesting to watching these folks scurry around now that a light is being shined on them.

More Benghazi Bull&#*

We have been getting a lot of garbage coming from what I like to call Darrell Issa’s (R-CA) “dog and pony show” about Benghazi and the nonsense that the Republican’s and their goofy surrogates are spewing out regarding this. It would be one thing if they actually cared about this incident AND were going to use hearings to better reform the processes in the way the State Department operates and handles security. But what Issa is actually doing is nothing but a complete clown show of a hack job all in an effort to both derail a potential Hillary Clinton Presidential run in 2016, raise funds for the G.O.P. ,  and disrupt any agenda that President Barak Obama might have.

Pretty strong words? Sure. But honestly, I am sick and tired of this nonsense and what it is doing to the United States and our polity. So let’s just see what the Republicans and their goofy surrogates are whining about.

First of all, interestingly enough, while Republicans are calling this “the worst thing evah” (Spelling mistake intentional), they were and are remarkably silent about their own record in the area of attacks on U.S. diplomatic and consular officials.

Bob Cesca writing at HuffPo, points out Republican hypocrisy, when America suffered thirteen (that’s 13) diplomatic and consular attacks during the Bush years and none of the modern day inquisitors involved had very little to say regarding them. Given that, how can we take them or their charges seriously? Did they all of a sudden gain concern for our diplomats? Of course not, it is pretty obvious to anyone that this thing is political theatre and that it is simply a partisan hack job for the reasons stated above.

So let’s break down some of this partisan hackery (new word) even further. First of all, I think it is important for everyone to read the 39 page findings of the Independent review board convened by the State Dept. and run by Admiral Mullen and Ambassador Pickering. This will put an end to the caterwauling and nonsensical lies spread by Republicans and their goofball supporters.

For instance, Republicans and their goofy supporters claim that if only the U.S. had “sent in the marines” Ambassador Stevens and the four American operatives would still be alive. And further, not only do they claim that the nothing happened, but they actually claim that someone (probably the evil secret Muslim President Barak Hussein Obama </snark>) told U.S. forces to “stand down”.

Well the review board debunks this lie with their action report (tough reading but important) of the night of Sept. 11^th, 2012 on pages 18 – 28 of the report. First of all, one must remember that the consular post in Benghazi was a small one with seven U.S. diplomatic personnel. There were other American assets in the area and these assets DID arrive to help it’s just that they were too late to stop the area from being overrun and the Ambassador and Information Management Officer Smith from dying of smoke inhalation.

Again, read these heartbreaking pages. There was absolutely no interference from Washington concerning response to the pleas for help coming from the Consulate. It is simply amazing to me that the Republicans and their drones would actually make this charge. Everyone did what they had to do once the attack was under way.

Now let’s take on some more of the partisan lies spread by those who would politicize the death of four Americans for their own fundraising and political agendas. Another lie these folks like to spread is concerning whether the President called it terrorism or not, and was that politically motivated. To answer the second part first, I have no doubt that there was some political gamesmanship by the White House here. It is true that certainly having a diplomatic outpost overrun by an al-Qaeda affiliate would look bad for the President, it is an extreme stretch to think it would have ruined the President’s re-election efforts. I can understand his reticence to call this a coordinated operation by al-Qaeda. That said, I don’t see any evidence of any kind of cover-up.

The President and his administration did not say that al-Qaeda worldwide had been defeated as the liars maintain. What they had said was that al-Qaeda in Af-Pak had suffered some very serious losses particularly to it’s leadership cadres and that it was severely weakened in those areas. No one denied that al-Qaeda affiliates were still at large and causing massive amounts of trouble wherever they went, so there goes that piece of nonsense.

On to the charge that the President never said it was “terrorism”. The Washington Post fact checkers say admit that while he did refer to “acts of terror” in a speech on Sept. 12 in the Rose Garden, he was being vague and then calls him out for denying he was talking about this days later in an interview. Now, I watched this interview, and no where do I see how the Washington Post came to their conclusions. What I see is a President that is taking a measured approach to a tough situation and waiting for more information to come in before racing to judgment.

On a personal note, this has to be one of the biggest steaming piles of horse manure used in what has become this political circus. Frankly, I don’t give a flying f*&% whether he called this a terror attack or he called it a freakin’ hamburger. It’s just not that important. It really isn’t. What is important is that someone get the facts, and then acts to either A) Bring the killers to justice and B) fixes this to make sure that it never happens again.

Besides what do these dumbasses actually think he was talking about when he referred to “acts of terror” in that speech? Do they think he was talking about egg throwing in New York? For goodness sakes, just how dumb do you have to be to not understand the President was talking about this attack? As my mom liked to say, these folks have “rocks in their heads”.

And how silly has Issa’s sideshow gotten. Well, first he wouldn’t let Ambassador Pickering testify after demanding that the Ambassador do testify. Then he says “Well, we will only let the Ambassador testify – if it’s in Private NOT in Public.

Here is Darrell Issa, talking about how he “doesn’t want this hearing to be a show”:

"The fact is, we don't want to have some sort of a stage show. We had fact witnesses. They testified. We have the Ambassador and Admiral Mullen who conducted and oversaw the [independent review]. We're inviting them on Monday. We'll go through, not in front of the public, but in a nonpartisan way.

So wait a minute, this whole big PUBLIC hearing really should be only conducted in PRIVATE? HUH????

Now, were there mistakes made here by the Administration that should have been reviewed. Absolutely. And Secretary Clinton conducted just such a review. Anyone reading it can see just how critical that review was. Is there a discussion to be had concerning American security in countries that are unstable and have active al-Qaeda affiliates in them? Absolutely.

Was there a White House cover-up about this? Not in the slightest. Some idiots have even gone so far as to say this is worse than Watergate. Those folks really should check themselves into some kind of mental health institution as their faculties for reason seem to have gone awry. It’s incredible. Here we have people comparing a criminal break-in ordered by the President himself, to some severe mistakes made by senior State Dept. individuals. The two are not even close to being on the same level.

And this is why Republicans and their goofy supporters should never be elected to any office higher than that of Park Bathroom attendant. Because, all they seem to do is waste people’s time with manufactured scandals and irrelevant congressional votes. Just today, the Republicans voted for the 37^th time to repeal the Affordable Healthcare Act even though they know that there is no possible way it will get through the Senate and if it did that, the President would simply veto it (and they don’t have the votes to overturn). It’s just a WASTE. OF. TIME.

Meanwhile, instead the House could be working on much more pressing issues such as dealing with Climate Change, Gun Violence, Joblessness, Improving our infrastructure, real immigration reform, and so forth. But no. Not these folks. They have to work on screeching about Benghazi, or yammering about the IRS or any other daily manufactured outrage. These people and their supporters are a bunch of hacks, and honestly their actions do nothing but disrupt the governance of the United States.

I suggest writing to your local Representative and tell them to get on with actually working with the President and Democrats instead of letting the country suffer so that they can achieve their own partisan political ends. It’s nonsense and it needs to stop. NOW!

Know Thine Enemy

Whether this phrase be the word of G-d or Sun Tzu, it is solid advice.

It is even better when your enemy actually tells you that he is your enemy and tells you that you must beware. So, you may be asking… How does this relate to Israel? Well, earlier this month when speaking to Hizbollah affiliated T.V. (Al – Mayadeen) in Lebanon, Jabril Rajoub, a member of Fatah’s Central Committee had this to say: 

"We the Palestinians are the enemies of Israel….

….."At present, we are satisfied by the popular resistance," Rajoub added, but explained, "We the Palestinians are a source of concern for Israel. We are in this country, and this country is ours. They are our enemy and our battle is against them.”…

…."Until now we have not had nuclear weapons, but in the name of Allah if we had nuclear weapons, we’d be using them”.

And there we have it or do we?

Is this all there is to this commentary? Are the Palestinians really so die-hard that they are the mortal enemies of Israel and can’t live in peace with the Israelis? For a guy like Jibril who signed on to the Geneva Initiative, is this really his stance? I think it is important that we understand what is really going on here.

First of all, we need to determine what made Jibril say this, particularly now. Is it that he merely needed to tell the truth and it needed to burst out or is there more to it? I believe there is. Of course, I actually do believe that Jibril is talking about how he sincerely feels. You don’t make a comment with such far reaching implications like that if you don’t mean it.

That said, I can think of a number of reasons though why he made that comment, and here they are:

1. Domestic Political Considerations: Unity Government talk brokered by Qatar is in the air and as of today, Hamas and Fatah have agreed to form a unity government within three months (for the 873^rd time </snark>). What does this mean? This means that now Fatah is competing with Hamas for who can be the voice of “the resistance” against the Israelis. Remember there are two recent polls out that show the Palestinian Polity supports “armed resistance” as either a first or second choice of tactics against the Israelis. In the latest Pew Poll (cited here)

“Palestinians are more likely to say armed struggle is the best way for their people to achieve statehood (45%) than they are to say negotiations or nonviolent resistance offer the best prospect for the creation of a Palestinian state (15% each). Another 22% volunteer that a combination of these three approaches would be most effective.”

This coupled with a high favorability rating for radicals like Islamic Jihad (58%) is forcing Fatah (who does enjoy a strong position in the polls) to move it’s position to one that is more radical. Hamas and Palestinian radicals are constantly hammering Fatah and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas as collaborators or as “lap dogs” for the Israelis. I think this kind of rhetoric is geared to stem that in part.

2. Regional Considerations: I think another part of this is the unrest that once again is roiling throughout the region with the rise of Islamist parties. Look where Jibril gave this interview. On Hizbollah T.V.  Look at what is happening in Egypt and in Jordan within their parliaments particularly with the rise of Islamist Political movements, where these people who have Peace Treaties with Israel are demanding their governments abrogate their agreements. The P.A. (or P.L.O.) does not want to get caught outside of these movements that are threatening to either force regime change or force regime radicalization in the region.

Of course, don’t forget Syria. Either way Syria is heading for a more radical future. If Assad wins the revolution, he will have his Iranian masters and his Hizbollah allies to thank. If the Palestinians in Syria and Lebanon don’t radicalize with regards to Israel they will be facing a ton of problems in how they are perceived by Beirut and Damascus. IF Assad loses well then, there will be an al-Qaeda state which will then push to radicalize Jordan. What will happen to the Palestinians then if they are seen as being allies with Israel?

Related to this, remember who is hosting Palestinian reconciliation talks: Qatar. Who just decided to bankroll Hamas and Egypt? The Qataris. Oh yes, and who is financing the Syrian Rebellion. Yep, that would be Qatar. They are using their economic power to become a broker in the region. Jibril is seeing an opportunity for the broke Palestinian Authority to “get his foot in the door”. Keep in mind that right now there is strong unrest focused on the P.A. for not paying wages to civil servants.

So, one has to look at what Jibril is saying and understand against the regional backdrop of what is happening.

Does this excuse anything he said? Absolutely not. It is quite obvious that the Palestinian Polity (or at least those who lead the Polity) have zero interest in settling the conflict permanently with the Israelis in a peaceful manner. I think there are those in the P.A. / P.L.O. that would settle for a peaceful Two State Solution, but, only as an interim step towards a Palestinian State from the Mediterranean to the Jordan.

And, given that only 29.3% of the Palestinian polity supports a Democratic One State Solution where Jews and Arabs live together in peace, I think there is very little that currently speaks to a permanent peace solution from the Palestinian side.

Interestingly enough there are reports that Prime Minister Netanyahu spoke to the P.A. regarding the Olmert plan last year in a secret meeting. So there is that…

In the end is Jibril “grandstanding”. Maybe. Still, one would hope that someone in the Palestinian polity would stand up and say “What the…. NO!”. If there has been this reaction I haven’t seen it.

So yes, until there is a denunciation by the Palestinian leadership for this remark AND I can’t see that coming from a unified Fatah, Hamas, PIJ leadership… I think the phrase “Know thine enemy is quite appropriate.

So You Want to Impeach the President

First, let's start with what the Constitution defines as offenses warranting impeachment and removal from office. Those can be found in Article II, Section 4:

The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

Treason and bribery are pretty straightforward, but what, exactly, constitutes high crimes and misdemeanors. Here's what former House Minority Leader (and former president) Gerald Ford (R-Michigan) said about them:

An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history; conviction results from whatever offense or offenses two-thirds of the other body considers to be sufficiently serious to require removal of the accused from office.

So, if you don't like the president's hair color? Impeach!

Don't like his speech? Impeach!

Don't like that his policies are helping our country recover from the disaster of the Bush years? Impeach!

Don't like that he supports equality? Impeach!

Don't like that he's ended the wars and kept America safe? Impeach!

Don't like that the American people twice voted for him? Impeach!

As long as you can get 218 members of the House of Representatives to set their hair on fire about something that annoys them about the President of the United States, you can go ahead and impeach him just because. There doesn't need to be any reason. No matter what happened, and no matter who is responsible, just remember that it's all the president's fault; so just impeach!

And, Republicans, if you do carry through with your initial threats just remember that three presidents will have been impeached. All three would have been Democrats impeached by partisan Republicans; and that would include impeaching the last two Democratic presidents.

Impeachment is designed for grave instances where the president refuses to cede power despite no longer being fit for office. It is not designed as a political bludgeon used to bully a president from the other party. The remedy for removing a president from office for policy disagreements is the ballot box, not the impeachment vote.

Besides, if you do impeach the president, what do you think will happen? Do you think that 22 Senate Democrats will join you in voting to remove President Obama? Do you think it will even get past the House managers and Chief Justice John Roberts parading in before Harry Reid makes a successful motion to dismiss the articles of impeachment and enter a directed verdict of acquittal?

Just admit that Barack Obama will be President of the United States until noon on January 20, 2017. Then you can get your Benghazi crazy on again once Hillary Rodham Clinton finishes delivering her inaugural speech.

What does it mean to be a “Liberal / Progressive Zionist”?

Friends ask me this question with the caveat, “I don’t understand exactly what that means”. I was talking to a few Krav Maga friends (some Israeli, some American) and one of my American friends said, “You really are a Zionist – huh?” I answered back with a “Yep, but, I am a Liberal Zionist”. Which followed with the question “Hmmm what does that mean?”. So I gave him my standard answer and then I thought more on what it means to be a “Liberal / Progressive Zionist”.

Here is what I came up with.

As I wrote here the other day, I think that Zionism is the progressive position to take regarding Israel and the Jewish people. It is my opinion that Zionism is a large tent, but, first and foremost it is a simple concept at the root of it. Simply put, I believe Zionism is the belief that the Jewish people have a legitimate right to self determination in a Nation State in part of their ancestral homeland in the Middle East.

And here the Jewish Virtual Library states:

Zionism:

The national movement for the return of the Jewish people to their homeland and the resumption of Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel.  Has come to include the development of the State of Israel and the protection of the Jewish nation in Israel.

So in a lot of ways beyond this basic definition the term “Zionism” is a very broad term which includes people from people like Zahava Gal-On (Leader of the Leftist Israeli party – Meretz) to Michael Ben-Ari (Leader of the neo-Kahanist Otzma L’Yisrael), both of whom can legitimately be called “Zionists” (whether we like it or not). Now does this mean that people from Meretz and people from Otzma are the same? Of course it doesn’t mean that. Only a simpleton (and some goofy anti-Zionists) believe something like that.
No, because it’s a “big tent” Zionism allows for a great deal of divergence in its thought. There are Religious Zionists, Secular Zionists, Nationalist Zionists, Conservative Zionists, Centrist Zionists, and Liberal / Progressive Zionists, just to name a few varieties.

So what does it mean to be a “Liberal / Progressive” Zionist? In my mind it means a few things. Most important to me though it means that I support the concept of a National Homeland and State for the Jewish people that is also a Westernized, Democratic Nation State with separation between Synagogue and State. I believe in a State that respects true democracy. A State that respects all of its citizens no matter what race, religion, and or cultural background they may have. I support a State that embraces equality for Women and for its LGBT community. I also support a State that maintains the common cultural aspects of the Jewish community regardless of the level of religious observance. In short I support a State that is the a model of “Jewish Democracy”. I am heartened by the words of the Israeli Declaration of Establishment of Statehood when it states:

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.

I think that these are noble goals. Now, is it realistic that everything will be met… Of course not, we are after human beings. No one is perfect. At the same time I think it is important that we strive to be better than what we are. Isn’t that a goal of being a person, to always improve oneself?

At the same time, I believe very strongly that becoming like our enemies will destroy who we are as well as the “spirit” of our people. I believe we can be and should be better than our enemies who I believe often times exhibit the worst parts of human behavior. In my mind, if I engage in the same tactics as my enemy what exactly makes me better than him/her, and if I am not better… then what’s the point in the long run. Does this mean I advocate defenseless behavior? In now way, shape, or form do I advocate that. I believe in stoutly defending our safety and principles, I just don’t believe we have eject our values and principles to do so.

So what does this mean for Modern Day Israel and by extension the Modern Day Jewish Community?
It means coming to terms with how and what we support in our own political polities. In the U.S., it means supporting candidates who believe in Progressive / Liberal values for the American People. What are those values? See above. It means that despite Rightwing “hackery” (I just made this word up), it means voting for and supporting those candidates that support social and economic justice for all Americans, not just those in the top 2%. It means not using another nation’s politics as an excuse to not support candidates that support (relatively) social and economic justice in one’s own nation. And by no means does it mean supporting candidates that expressly vote against social and civil rights at home.

What does it mean for Israel and the Jewish Community? It means supporting those organizations that support social justice and democracy in Israel (being consistent after all is important). It means supporting the rights of Israelis no matter what their background (Jewish, Muslim, or Christian) to enjoy equal civil rights. It means supporting democracy in its truest form. It means supporting the rights of all members of the Jewish community with regards to worship and marriage.

What does it mean in terms of Israeli foreign policy and in particular how Israel deals with the issues of the West Bank and the Occupation? It means supporting a defensible State. As a Liberal / Progressive Zionist, I heartily applaud the efforts of President Obama and his agenda of working hand in hand with the Israelis to increase their security and well being. It also means supporting a viable Two State Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It means supporting a solution where both Israelis AND Palestinians can realize their legitimate rights to self determination.

What a “liberal” does not support is either side’s version of a “One State Solution”, and the disenfranchisement or ethnic cleansing of citizens and residents of the area.

For me, it is fine to call oneself a Zionist as long as that person believes in the legitimate rights of self determination of the Jewish people. What is wrong is when Rightists try to steal the term “liberal” and instead support parties and groups which are strictly opposed to Democracy, and Civil Rights in any polity, whether it be here (in the U.S.) or abroad.

So, this is how I view what Zionism is and what I believe it should be. I believe that our people after 2,500 + years of oppression by others should reach to our “higher selves” and remember to maintain the humanity and sense of justice that has kept us going as a people for all this time. It by no means, means that we should be weak or allow others to take advantage of us, but, I do believe that we can be both strong as well as hold to our higher ideals as much as is humanely possible.

To All Of The Equivocating Idiots When It Comes To Islam

I continue to be amazed at the ability of people, including those people who fancy themselves to be part of the "reality based" end of the political spectrum, to continue to deny the obvious in favor of twisted non-logic.

-----

Let's do a simple thought experiment:  If I was thinking about threats to my health, which one of these should I worry about and take steps to mitigate:  1) Smallpox or 2) Cancer?  Or are they both an equal threat?

If you said that they are both an equal threat, then you are unquestionably a moron because Smallpox has been eradicated from the Earth for over 20 years, while Cancer is a real contemporary threat.  It is true that in the past Smallpox killed millions, but this is irrelevant to the question of whether it is a threat now.

Happily very few people would say that Smallpox and Cancer are an equal threat. Yet some people have trouble employing the same simple logic when it comes to extremist religions and the threat they pose.

-----

If I am a person who doesn't want to be the victim of religiously-inspired violence or terrorism - today, here in the contemporary real world - are all religious ideologies equal threats?

Obviously not.  There is one religious ideology that absolutely dominates the religiously inspired violence in the world today, and that religion is Islam.  Whether it's riots about cartoons, murders over movies, suicide terrorism, or just plain regular terrorism if religiously motivated, it is almost exclusively coming out of Islam.

When we are evaluating the world today, including the situation we are in and what should or should not be done about it, it doesn't matter what happened 800 years ago with the Crusades, or even 200 years ago.  It just doesn't.  It matters what is happening now.

And now, in the world today, neither Christians nor Jews nor Hindus, Buddhists, or Zoroastrians are rioting and killing people over cartoons, issuing Fatwas against authors and film makers, or strapping on suicide vests.  Nowhere are those ideologies motivating people to throw acid on girls for going to school, or to stone people for having sex, or to keep women out of sporting events.  And with very few exceptions are adherents of these groups planting religiously-inspired bombs anywhere. 

------

A leading champion for the failure to grasp the obvious and insistence on obfuscating is columnist Glenn Greenwald.  On yesterday's "Real Time with Bill Maher" TV program, Greenwald again employed the 'Oh, but what about the Crusades' canard when Maher pointed out that Islam is the more dangerous religious ideology today when it comes to real threats to life, safety, and secularism. 

This is essentially the same debate that Greenwald has been having with Sam Harris.  Greenwald's largely intentional divorce from reality has been taken down by Harris so thoroughly that it does not need to be repeated here.

I will just point out that Greenwald has still not responded to Harris' central 'put your money where your mouth is' challenge, in which Greenwald would publish a cartoon mocking Islam and Harris would publish a cartoon mocking any other religion of Greenwald's choice, and they would see what happens.  Obviously, only Greenwald's cartoon would lead to widespread violence, riots, and death threats.  The fact that Greenwald cannot respond at all to this challenge leads me to think that he really doesn't even believe his own rhetoric.

-----

The reluctance of people to accept the simple fact that today, in the world, the overwhelming source of religiously motivated threats and violence is Islam and not any other religion, is simply insane.  I attribute it to two causes, which are closely related.  The first is cultural relativism, in which some people (mostly liberals) are very uncomfortable with anything that finds fault with something that is perceived as another culture.  The other is purely ideological - admitting that there is a real, actual problem in the world with Islamist violence  means agreeing with Repuiblicans about something, which some liberals simply cannot bring themselves to do.  This gets back to the idea that if Republicans said that the Earth is round, some liberals would have to insist that is flat.  But in the end, of course, the inability of people to get past their narrow ideological blinders and simply acknowledge the obvious is a perennial problem on a variety of issues.

If you are one of those who are spinning in circles trying to deny the obvious, I encourage you to simply stop it and acknowledge that the Earth is round, even if Republicans think so too.  Acknowledge that today, in the contemporary real world, it is not Christianity, Mormonism, Judiasm, or Hinduism that is motivating people to engage in widespread religiously motivated killings, terrorism, threats, honor murders, and riots.  Those ideologies are not motivating people to throw acid on girls for going to school, or to stone people for having sex, or to keep women out of sporting events.  Anyone can make a cartoon or write a book critical of any of these religions - and in fact people do all the time, and they do not have to live in fear.  However, in today's world, Islam is simply in a class by itself.  Among religions, it is by far more of a threat when it comes to violence, terrorism.