The Real Attack on Religious Freedom

Birth control is of interest to women and the men who love them. The Republicans are dumber than mud if they think they can gain a single vote in America by trying to make it more difficult to get birth control. They could lose twenty million votes on this issue alone, and a party that is so good at winning elections knows this.

Republicans are unscrupulous, disingenuous, dishonest, and greedy, but the leadership must know by now that birth control is a huge loser for them. Santorium has his own theology, by which I mean, theology, and it is opposed to birth control, but even he has backed off of considering it as a prescription for governance.

So what gives with the Issa horse and pony show?

Here’s the scoop. Originally HHS proposed a rule that required that every employer who is obliged by the Affordable Care Act to provide insurance shall also provide reproductive health care coverage. It’s not a controversial issue: indeed, it’s the law in over twenty states now. And, it is the practice of a number of Catholic institutions including the DePaul university, the largest Catholic university in the nation, and the largest private institution in the President’s hometown of Chicago.

But somehow the Bishops decided that they needed to get involved in politics, and they attacked President Obama, declaring that they were offended by a requirement that they claimed to object to on grounds of conscience. Many Catholics, including Democrats rallied around the church which they had been told was under attack. Nevermind, that the vast majority of them have used birth control. The prospect of harming Obama, and maybe even helping Santorium was just too tempting.

Obama was quick to act. He produced a compromise that required the insurers to pick up the tab for reproductive health care services for any institution that had moral objections to paying for it. The Catholic Hospital Association signed on to the deal, and the initial reaction of the bishops was favorable, too.

But the Republicans sensed weakness. They quickly realized that there were people who had moral objections to doing anything that Obama proposed. They argued that they, too, should have a conscientious objector’s pass on Obama care. This, said they, was a matter of First Amendment religious freedom.

You can usually count on the Republicans to overplay their hand, and this is a perfect example. Republican talking heads are trying desperately to continue to frame this as a freedom of conscience issue, but they won’t be able to keep it up for much longer.

Rick Santorium is a culture warrior, especially on the subject of abortion. As this plays out, he is likely to pay a price. It will be for future historians to determine how much the issue cost him in Michigan where is currently favored to win the primary. I think his chances are not as good as the polling suggests. Nate Silver has him with a 57% chance of winning, and intrade.com has him at 59.2 per cent.

Now here’s what got Big Mitch ticked off. These buffoons are messing with the First Amendment. When they get slapped down, it will be a major instance of scum-bags trying to claim religious freedom for nefarious purposes. It may work for Scientology but that’s because we tend to be willing to error on the side of religious liberty. But the scam caught up with Synanon. And it will catch up with the Republican bastards, too. And when it does, it will cast suspicion on anyone who has a legitimate claim under the First Amendment.

Well, what do you expect from the people who allow white supremacists like Peter Brimelow to give an address at the CPAC convention? Do you think they care about religious freedom?

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

A New World Record -- for Hypocrisy

Here’s what Mitt Romney said to CPAC today.

“This is a moment when our country needs serious change and dramatic reform. So let me tell you exactly what kind of president I will be. To get America back on track, and to get Americans back to work we need bold and sweeping reforms. These aren’t managerial issues of changing this department or that agency. To change Washington we are going to have to change the very relationship between the government and the citizen. And these are moral choices that will define our nation and define us for generations to come. Let me mention a few of them. Today, as you know we borrow 40 cents of every dollar we spend. That’s unconscionable; it is unsustainable; it is reckless; it is immoral. And it will end under my presidency.”

Let’s examine the world class hypocrisy of this statement.

Romney is able to compete, not because he is popular, but rather because he is so fabulously wealthy that he can outspend any competitor, and crush them. Even still, he lost every county in Minnesota, every county is Missouri, and Colorado, to the incredibly underfunded campaign of Rick Santorium.

I wouldn’t normally be concerned about how another person made his or her money, although when a guy has Swiss bank accounts, and money stashed in other off-shore tax havens, I admit my curiosity is piqued. But what makes Romney’s wealth acquisition the subject of my interest is the fact that he is running for President. He made his money in business, and the idea that he is promoting is that what he did for the companies that he did not cannibalize, he can do for the country.

So bear with me for a moment while we talk about leveraged buyouts.

A leveraged buyout (LBO) is a way that one company takes over another. Let’s call the company doing the hostile takeover Bain Capital. And let’s call the other company Victims’R’Us. What Bain does is put some of its money at risk, and tries to buy the entire company. But it doesn’t want to spend too much of its money because, you see, it’s not really that committed to the long term success of the Victims’R’Us. 

So, what to do? Bain borrows the money to buy the rest of Victims’R’Us, and secures it with the assets of the target company. As the founder of the Republican party said, “It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God’s assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men’s faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged.” And so, in that spirit, let us forebear to judge those who wring corporations from the sweat of their owner’s brow.

Except that Mitt Romney won’t forebear to judge. He tells us that to borrow 40% of what you spend is immoral, and, I call that judgmental. But I will accept his judgment.

Here’s a little fun-fact: In a typical LBO, the ratio of debt to equity is 9:1. That means that 90% of the assets are paid for with borrowed money. And, depending on the company’s financial health, it will usually be financing spending by much more than 100%. Much more.

Now, this is what Romney did. This is the record that he is running on. This is the raison d’être for his candidacy, and its entire rationale. It may seem strange that Romney would call it unconscionable, unsustainable, reckless, and immoral. But let us judge not, that we be not judged.

And here’s another fun-fact: a lot of what Victims’R’Us spend money on is consulting fees for Bain Capital. I mean a lot of money! They are not just wringing their bread from the sweat of Victims’R’Us. They are wringing the neck of Victims’R’Us. But due to a little catch in the Tax Code, the paycheck that they get as consultants, is not taxed as if it were a paycheck. Instead, it is called “carried interest,” That’s why Mitt Romney pays less that 15% on the 21.6 million dollars of income that he admitted to on his 2010 tax return.

It’s good work if you can get it.

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

What did Hillary Clinton say, and when did she say it?

Recently, the enemies of Obama, for their own reasons, have reacted with horror to something that Hillary Clinton said. Oh, dear! What could it have been?

Some say that she compared Israel to Iran. Of course, people who say this can’t possibly believe it, since Mrs. Clinton has re-affirmed the deep and abiding alliance between the United States and Israel, and at this very moment, the Department of Defense is drawing up war plans against Iran.

Perhaps we will never know what she said, since whatever it was it was allegedly said at the Saban Center  for Mid-East Policy of the Brookings Institute. The comments were off the record. Israeli media reported that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton derided “anti-Democratic” measures in Israel that target liberal non-governmental organizations and women.

Let’s take a look at the accusation that the treatment of women in Israel is, lehavdil, to be compared to Iran.

The gist of this complaint revolves around treatment of women by certain Jews who consider themselves to be extremely religious. They’re not, of course. What they are is extremely crazy. Thus, for example, they thought it was okay to spit on a young girl because she was dressed immodestly according to their standards. It should be noted that she wore the prim and proper attire of an 8 year old Orthodox Jewish girl, which is what she was, but this did not stop the despicable conduct that included calling her a prostitute. You can find the reaction of a mainstream Orthodox organization here.  Money quote: “Your actions are diametrically opposed to Judaism.” Chabad was unstinting in its denunciation: “Violent behaviors of individuals or groups who abuse, intimidate and insult others are a flagrant offense to Torah, and deserve to be unequivocally condemned.” Read the entire statement here.

The story first gained attention when it made the evening news in Israel. The story, which can be seen here, shows an Orthodox woman comparing the zealous lunatics to Iran. Indeed, the backlash which was both welcome and inevitable, has adopted as a slogan, “Don’t turn Israel into Iran.” Is Hillary Clinton to be criticized for saying essentially the same thing?

By the way, the growing influence of the lunatic fringe has manifested in other unfortunate incidents. In one incident, a meshugana physically prevented a public bus from moving because a female passenger refused to move to the back of the bus. Anybody who knows anything about America’s shameful history of segregation and the bravery of Rosa Parks can’t help but have a visceral reaction to this event. That would include Mrs. Clinton. Many lovers of Zion hear of this and feel that the image of Israel as an egalitarian democracy that is a homeland to all Jews, including secular Jews, is being tarnished. That, too, would include Mrs. Clinton. All honor to those who think that it is disrespectful of women to sit behind them, but I can not support their right to set the standards for public transportation for all of Israel. 

In another incident, a few soldiers, drafted from the ranks of the Haredi (religious), walked out of a military event because a female soldier sang, and listening to a female voice is against their view of proper conduct. It would not have been a big deal because the IDF rebuked the company commanders and instructed them to show sensitivity to the religious choices of their troops. Again, I respect the religious choices of the troops, though they are certainly not the ones I would make. And more power to these troops for defying the norms of their community to serve their country. If the matter had ended there we would not be talking about it here. However, in what is was surely an attempt to be provocative, one of the rabbis said that his followers should “face a firing squad” rather than obey an order which required them to hear a woman sing. This rabbi surely would not approve of his followers being in the army of a Zionist state. It is reasonable to think that this religious leader is trying to undermine the secular nature of Israel, and I can understand why any American Secretary of State would find it a matter of concern.

So, enough said about Hillary Clinton’s criticism of the religious extremists who are gaining influence in Israel. I join in those criticisms, and echo the sentiment of many Orthodox Jews, that these zealots are threatening to turn Israel from a democracy into a theocracy. We have enough theocracies, of which Iran is a despicable example.

The tougher issue concerns some anti-Democratic measures that are being legislated in Israel, most notorious of which is the so-called NGO bill. The Forward wrote about it in the December 23, 2011 issue under the headline Orwell Would Love Israel's Anti-NGO Bill with the sub-head “Move to Limit Funding Runs Counter to Global U.S. Policy”

The bill has three parts: First, it outlaws all foreign government funding of certain types of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that are deemed threatening to the state. It also taxes their domestic Israeli donations at 45%. Second, it slaps a 45% tax on foreign donations to “political” NGOs such as Peace Now and B’Tselem (which monitors human rights violations of Israeli law in the territories) and the Israeli equivalent of the ACLU. Third, it creates a Knesset (not judicial or administrative) panel to hear appeals by organizations seeking exemption. The Forward’s article concludes, “The more you look at it, the more it becomes clear that the effect of the bill — its main intent, in fact — is to restrict or outlaw the advocacy of observing the laws of the state. Orwell would have loved it.”

You can read the Forward article to see why many Americans of good will believe this bill is bad news, even, anti-Democratic. Does Hillary Clinton have the right to such an opinion? Of course! But should she publicly criticize America’s closest ally? You be the judge, but remember, please, that Secretary Clinton’s comments were behind closed doors at the Saban Center.

A word or two about the kind of NGOs that Mrs. Clinton may or may not have criticized Israel for attacking. NGOs were in the news when another mid-Eastern country cracked down on them. You can read about it on the Huffington Post: Egypt Pro-Democracy, Human Rights Offices Stormed By Soldiers.

The Obama administration demanded Egyptian authorities immediately halt the raids on NGOs, saying they are “inconsistent” with long-standing U.S-Egypt cooperation.

The U.S. State Department called on the Egyptian government “to immediately end the harassment of NGO staff, return all property and resolve this issue.” Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said the U.S. ambassador to Egypt and the top U.S. diplomat for the Middle East have spoken to Egyptian officials about the situation and “made very clear that this issue needs immediate attention.”  Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt) threatened to cut off the $1.5 billion aid to the Egyptian Supreme Counsel of the Armed Forces (SCAF). As a result, Egyptian ministers are scurrying around to announce that they were shocked, shocked, to learn of the raids.

Contrast this to the mild rebuke of Israel, offered privately as one friend to another.

You don’t have to be a high level CIA analyst to figure out that these NGOs do more than just offer civics lessons to community organizers. Let’s take a look at the ones that were targeted by SCAF.

One of the pro-democracy/human rights offices was the International Republican Institute (IRI) an organizati­on funded by the United States government that conducts international political programs, sometimes labeled “democrati­zation programs.” Sen. John McCain is the chairman. 

Another was the National Democratic Institute for Internatio­nal Affairs (NDIIA or NDI), an organizati­on created by the United States government by way of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) to channel grants for furthering democracy in developing nations. Taxpayer funding is provided by the Federal Government­, both directly from the United States Agency for Internatio­nal Developmen­t and the Department of State and indirectly through the National Endowment for Democracy. Additional funds are raised through voluntary donations from foreign governments. It is headquarte­red in Washington­ D.C. 

Freedom House was another group targeted by the Egyptian military. Freedom House’s website states “American leadership in internatio­nal affairs is essential to the cause of human rights and freedom” and that this can primarily be achieved through the group's “analysis, advocacy, and action” 

I am going to go out on a limb here and suggest that maybe having these types of NGOs operating next door to Egypt might help that country transition to a real democracy rather than one which comes to power through elections but then imposes an Islamist, Muslim Brotherhood agenda.

If so, I can understand why our Secretary of State might reprove the Israeli government for actions that seem to target these NGOs. As supporters of Israel, we can only hope that she does it privately and quietly. You know, like at the Saban Center. 

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

Yesterday's big news

When the history of the 2012 Presidential election is written, few will note that November 28, 2011 was the day when it became unassailably obvious that Barak Obama would be re-elected.

What was the news break? Was it Manchester Union-Leader’s endorsement of Newt Gingrich? Or was it when Ginger White revealed her long and recent affair with Herman Cain?

None of the above.

Newt Gingrich was the soup de jour on the Any-But-Romney buffet. But New Hampshire is near Massachusetts, and the editorial board of the Union-Leader was familiar with Romney. Familiarity had the predictable multiplier effect on contempt, and nobody was surprised when the paper gave Mitt the back if its hand. That Gingrich would be the beneficiary, may have been an unforeseen godsend to the President. After all, Alex Wagner, hostess of the MSNBC morning news show, Now, actually uttered this sentence: “‘Loathsome’ is a word often used in connection with Newt Gingrich.” And yet, there are those who believe that Gingrich can actually win the election.

Herman Cain had no chance of being President for reasons too numerous to catalogue here. It could be argued that his demise as a candidate helps the Republican party because it shakes up the field and may advance the day when a real competitor will be sifted out.

The real news that was an answer to my question and to the President’s prayers came on the Rachel Maddow show, when guest Buddy Roemer announced that if he didn’t win the Republican nomination, he would run on the America Votes ticket.

Buddy Who? Roemer was a member of Congress before he became the governor of Louisiana. He was the CEO of a private company and made his fortune there. Legislative experience, executive experience in government and private enterprise – call it the tri-fecta. He has been an advocate for election reform for many years and he has limited contributions to his campaign to under $100. As a result, he has not been invited to any of the Republican debates because those who sponsor the debates only invite viable candidates and hold that any candidate who has not raised a certain amount of money is not viable. It has been said of Roemer, that he is “a dynamic orator who could light up an audience with his first two sentences. When he got wound up it was truly evangelical and, he made sense. His wiry, five foot seven, one-hundred thirty-five pound frame would seem to uncoil and grow as he outlined his vision as a fighter against crime, corruption and waste in government, poor education, taxes and industrial pollution.”

As governor, Roemer called a special session of the legislature to push an ambitious tax and fiscal reform program for state and local governments. He vowed to slash spending, abolish programs, and close state-run institutions. Voters ultimately rejected his proposals, but times have changed, and what he served up is just what the Republicans are hungry for. Roemer vetoed an anti-abortion law, on grounds that it was unconstitutional. His veto was over-ridden, but in the end, he was vindicated because the law was, in fact, ruled unconstitutional. Though he is twice divorced, and thrice married, his personal life does not have the baggage connected with the salacious details and hypocrisy of Newt Gingrich.

In short, he is a perfect match for America Votes.

America who? America Votes is a grass roots organization that seeks to change the way that we select Presidential candidates. It intends to have a national internet primary. It promises the victor 50 state ballot access. Given Roehmer’s go-go (good government) credentials, he seems like a prohibitive odds-on favorite to win the internet primary.

What does it mean? It means that in every state, Republicans who are disenchanted with their candidate will have a choice other than voting for the President or staying home. It is obvious that a lot of Republicans who don’t like Romney will hold their nose and vote for him. But a good two or three percent of Republicans are either too bigoted to vote for a Mormon, or just simply feel, as I do, that Romney doesn’t care about people like me. A one or two point decline in support for Romney in key states is all it takes to deliver them to Obama.

Gingrich’s road is an uphill, long shot battle as is, but if one or two percent of his hoped-for voters defect to Roemer, he can wave goodbye to any hope of being elected. Thanks, Buddy!

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

If you are a one issue voter, and your one issue is Israel

A friend of mine, whom I respect greatly, recently said that any one of the Republican hopefuls is preferable to Barack Obama. Maybe this is because she thinks that Obama is not a staunch enough supporter of Israel.

I was thinking of this while watching the Sunday talk shows today. This week, the Defense Minister and former Prime Minister of Israel, Ehud Barak appeared on the Sunday morning talk show, Fareed Zakaria GPS. The host is editor-at-large and a columnist for TIME magazine, and a columnist for The Washington Post.

 I found this exchange particularly interesting:

ZAKARIA: You know that there are people in the United States who've criticized President Obama for not supporting Israel strongly enough. Do you believe that President Obama is a very strong supporter of Israel?   

BARAK: He is extremely strong supporter of Israel in regard to - to its security. Traditionally, the president will support in Israel in keeping its collective military edge and taking care of its security needs. But this administration is excelling in this. And it could not have happened without the immediate direct support of the president. So I don't think that anyone can raise any question mark about the devotion of this president to the security of Israel.  

It doesn't mean that we cannot have difference of opinion at this or that point about this or that other aspect of what happens around us, Middle East or the peace process. I would love to see the American president agree to everything that comes from  our government, but I think that's too - kind of idealistic. 

 What does Ehud Barack know, that my friend does not?

It should be recalled that President Obama has successfully fought off Palestinian membership in the General Assembly, and is the first President to explicitly recognize that Israel is a “Jewish State,” (i.e. no right of return for Palestinians.)

To help insure the safety and security of Israel, the Obama administration has realized unprecedented levels of military cooperation with the state of Israel. The administration’s request for $2.775 billion to aid in Israel in fiscal year 2010 was the largest request in history. In F.Y. 2011, the administration requested even more: $3 billion.

“We’re talking about the realization of the Iron Dome missile defense system that will be funded out of this money and it will be saving Israeli lives from rockets, wherever they come from. That is real-that is not just a number, folks, that is a real live tangible impact on Israelis’ lives," according to Jarrod Bernstein, the President's Jewish community laison.

The President is winning the diplomatic war over Iran’s nuclear program. “On Iran, the president has spent more time trying to block Iran’s nuclear ambitions than any other foreign policy issue,” Bernstein said. “And it’s something that he raises every single time he’s in a room with a foreign world leader, about what more we can be doing.”

 “He’s also galvanized the international community to impose the toughest set of sanctions on Iran to date. In fact, he made the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad acknowledge in the Iranian parliament how hard of a time he’s having because of the American sanctions. And that is not something you hear very often in Iran, folks,” said Bernstein.

Finally, President Obama called for a “non-militarized” Palestinian state. No President has ever taken such a pro-Israel stance, and it is remarkable that this position has not drawn more attention. What has drawn attention is his call for a return to pre-1967 borders, with agreed upon swaps. This is essentially the same as  President G.W. Bush's demand outlined in a press release dated January 10, 2008 in which he referred to the Israeli presence in all of Jerusalem as an  “occupation.”

“The point of departure for a permanent status negotiations to realize this vision seems clear: There should be an end to the occupation that began in 1967. ... While territory is an issue for both parties to decide, I believe that any peace agreement between them will require mutually agreed adjustments to the armistice lines of 1949 to reflect current realities and to ensure that the Palestinian state is viable and contiguous.”

And of course, this is the position of the Israeli government, too.

 Well, maybe my friend thinks that there is a Republican who is a better candidate than Obama on Israel or some other issue. So let’s take a look: For some time now the Republican presidential hopefuls have been campaigning and debating in hopes of being the last man or woman standing at the end of the nominating process. Mitt Romney has never been able to attract a following of more than 25% which is not surprising when one considers he is the spiritual godfather of individual mandates in healthcare reform.

Tim Pawlenty was seen as a reasonable alternative, except for the small problem that no body wanted to hear from him, much less give him money. So, after a flirtation with birther Donald Trump, the search for an alternative began in earnest.

 First up was Michelle Bachman, who, as I pointed out in these precincts wants to raise taxes on the poor in spite of her signature on a Grover Norquist pledge. She’s hoping for a second look now, but during her first pass, she could not think of anything to say other than “Make Obama a one-term President,” and repeal health care reform.

 The Republicans called out for another candidate and they got Rick Perry. The Texas governor who accused Romney of being a magnet for illegal aliens gives in-state tuition to illegal aliens attending college in his own state, and called anyone who disagreed with him “heartless.”

His pathetic debate performances highlighted the fact that he is not ready for prime time. A main ingredient in his stump speech, and, indeed, in his philosophy of government is that it should be streamlined by cutting out three government departments. On the test question, “Can you name them?” he got 67% right.

As if the comedian’s-full-employment-act had suddenly been signed into law, up popped Herman Cain, who clearly didn't know what is meant by “Palestinian right of return,” when asked about it.  Long before Cain was running for president and getting attention for his “bold 9-9-9 plan,” the residents of SimCity 4 -- which was released in 2003 -- were living under a system where the default tax rate was 9 percent for commercial taxes, 9 percent for industrial taxes and 9 percent for residential taxes.

During a debate in Iowa, the former CEO of Godfather’s Pizza recited his favorite inspirational quote: “A poet once said, ‘life can be a challenge, life can seem impossible, but it’s never easy when there’s so much on the line.’”

 The poet? It’s from the theme of Pokémon: The Movie 2000, sung by the great disco queen Donna Summers.

Then came the sexual scandals, which, bad enough though they were, were not the worst of it. That would be his disastrous handling of the accusations which included thinly veiled threats aimed at other women inclined to come forward, and statements to the effect that there were thousands of women who he did not sexually harass.

The shameless invocation of Justice Thomas’s memorable phrase “high tech lynching,” was especially offensive because (1) I believe Anita Hill, (2) Our attitudes and understanding about sexual harassment has evolved since then, thanks, in part to Dr. Hill's bravery, (3)Thomas should not have been confirmed, and should in fact be impeached, and, (4) Cain was pretty darn quick to play the race card when it suited him.

What seemed like it must be the final stake through his heart was his gaffe in which he responded to a question about Libya with no apparent idea if he was talking about a country in Africa, in which President Obama had masterfully overseen the ousting of a vicious dictator/terrorist, or the tattooed lady made famous by Groucho Marx:  

You might think that was the end of Cain, but as it happens he managed to go downhill from there. Recall, if you will that Cain had once campaigned on a promise that all bills would be required to be no longer than three pages. Jon Stewart did an impersonation of Cain and then threw up a mock billboard that read: “HERMAN CAIN 2012 - I DON'T LIKE TO READ.”




Frankly, I thought it was hilarious. But in the immortal words of Ron Popiel, “Wait! There’s more!”

Cain tried to explain away his Libya gaffe by saying that the American people want “a leader, not a reader.” As goofy as the notion that Americans don’t want an informed President is, he trumped that, too! It turns out that the line was stolen from – wait for it – The Simpson’s Movie!



Next up is Newt Gingrich. The former lobbyist for Freddy Mac is hoping that he can get the nomination for President by vilifying his former client who paid him millions of dollars. This is the same Newt who said in September of 2008, “I think Senator McCain should have turned and said, ‘Senator Obama, are you prepared to give back all the money that Freddie Mac & Fannie Mae gave to you?’”

Things aren’t going well for Newt when Jack Abramoff accuses him of “engaging in the exact kind of corruption that America disdains.” Gingrich who has worked with Al Sharpton and Hillary Clinton also worked for the Heritage Foundation from whence Mitt Romney got the idea for individual mandates.

Gingrich has got more baggage than an airport carousel, but he has tried to excuse his serial philandering by saying that it was partly because of his “passion for this country.”  I can understand that excuse: I’ve seen Calista and I understand the joke to which the punch-line is “Do it for Old Glory." But what was Calista’s reasoning?

Maybe she is drawn to men with power – he was the Speaker of the House at the time that they began their affair. Maybe she just likes a guy with a million dollar line of credit at Tiffany’s, but that’s not the point. The point is the brazen hypocrisy of carrying on an affair while impeaching the President for – well, we all know what for.

I could go on for hours about Newt Gingrich’s personal failings but why bother? The guy is a pathetic liar, but that’s not why the Republicans will reject him. His real problem is that he is trying to court the religious right, most of whom are devout Southern Baptists. That’s the faith that he rejected when he converted to Roman Catholicism, a church which many Southern Baptists believe is headed by the anti-Christ.

 To me, they’re all gentiles, which I suppose is another thing I have in common with Jon Huntsman, besides the fact that neither one of us can get more than 3% support within the Republican party.

Luckily for Ron Paul, the media refuses to take him seriously, because if he ever gets the spotlight, his ugly association with his racist followers will pull the scab off an oozing wound on the Republican body politic.

Rick Santorum is the only guy I haven’t mentioned, and perhaps by the time you read this he will have run out of money. After all, he seems to be trying to be too conservative for the Tea Party, and his steadfast opposition to abortion and equality for gays is so extreme that even they realize that he is unelectable. The next President will probably have to win Pennsylvania, and Perry has already lost in state-wide election there.

So, what does it all add up to?

First, if you would be honest, you must admit that Obama is a staunch and able ally of Israel.

Second, he is going to be re-elected because there is no Republican who can win, and darn few that can be considered serious candidates.

Third, if you want to be a friend of Israel, give your support to Obama, so that he will continue to honor the opinions of “Lovers of Zion,” like myself and the friend I referenced above.

 “… and tell ‘em Big Mitch sent ya!”