United Nations

Reelected Presidents And Foreign Policy

An interesting trend of reelected American Presidents is their tendency to become deeply involved in foreign policy matters. This is true since the dawn of America as a world leader in the time of Theodore Roosevelt.

The question is whether this is a planned strategy, or a simple reaction to events, or both.

After Theodore Roosevelt won his full term, having succeeded William McKinley after his assassination, TR became involved in aggressive policy making, criticizing Kaiser Wilhelm of Germany over Morocco at the Algeciras Conference of 1906, and taking leadership of relations with Japan.

Woodrow Wilson, after keeping us out of war in Europe, called for our entrance into World War I a month after his second inauguration, and then went to the Versailles Peace Conference after the war, and worked, unsuccessfully, to convince the US Senate to ratify the Versailles Treaty and membership in the League of Nations. He also committed troops, along with Great Britain, France, Italy, and Japan, to attempt an overthrow of the Soviet Union regime under Nikolai Lenin.

Calvin Coolidge, elected after succeeding Warren G. Harding in 1923, became involved in the promotion of the Kellogg Briand Pact in 1928, an attempt to outlaw war as an instrument of international policy.

Franklin D. Roosevelt moved the nation closer to dealing with the German Nazi, Italian Fascist, and the Imperial Japanese threat before and during the early part of the Second World War, and then took us into the war after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in his third term, and pushed for an alliance with the British and the Soviet Union during the war, and advocated the formation of the United Nations as the war was ending.

Harry Truman, after succeeding FDR upon his death in 1945, and winning his own election in 1948, helped to form the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, took America into the Korean War, and gave aid to the French in the Indochinese War.

Dwight D. Eisenhower, in his second term, engaged in diplomacy with Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev at Camp David in 1959 and secretly planned to overthrow Cuban leader Fidel Castro.

Lyndon B. Johnson, after succeeding the assassinated John F, Kennedy in 1963, in his full term, escalated American involvement in Vietnam to a full scale war that divided the country, and invaded the Dominican Republic in 1965.

Richard Nixon, after being reelected, became engaged in the Yom Kippur War in 1973, saving the possibility of a Soviet intervention in the Middle East, and also arranged the overthrow of the Chilean President, Salvador Allende.

Ronald Reagan, in his second term, engaged in arms agreements with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev; bombed Libya over its claim of a 200 mile territorial limit; and supported overthrow of dictatorial regimes in Haiti and the Phillippines.

Bill Clinton, in his second term, brought about peace in Northern Ireland; became engaged in war against Serbia over Kosovo; and engaged in counter terrorism actions against Osama Bin Laden and other terrorists.

George W. Bush, in his second term, conducted a “surge” in Iraq, and promoted action against the HIV-AIDS epidemic in Africa.

The question is what Barack Obama will end up doing in the field of foreign policy, and whether he will initiate it, or react to events he cannot control.

Obscene, Crude Behavior By Republicans And Conservative Ideologues: No Common Decency!

Republicans and conservative ideologues have no limits as to their obscene, crude behavior.

Witness the news that Speaker of the House John Boehner, passing by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, uttered “Go F—Yourself”, which startled Reid, and Boehner repeated it. This was done, all because of the frustration of Boehner with Reid and the Democrats over the difficult bargaining on the “Fiscal Cliff”. It is certainly believable that anyone can have such thoughts, and might even state so to his friends and colleagues about someone else, but to use such language directly eye to eye with the person being attacked by such invective, is totally unacceptable, totally crude and obscene, totally unbecoming of a Congressional leader or anyone else in the public eye! Boehner needs to apologize publicly to Reid, but is unlikely to do so, but this makes further communication and negotiation with political rivals all that much more difficult! As a public figure, Boehner needs to set an example of good and appropriate behavior!

Let us not forget that during the George W. Bush Administration, Vice President Dick Cheney said the same words that Boehner utiliized against Reid, against Senator Patrick Leahy in the Senate chamber, and never apologized, and in fact bragged and gloated about his misbehavior and lack of class!

But it is not just foul language as mentioned above, but also the attack on Hillary Clinton by Republicans and conservatives who think her concussion and hospitalization with a blood clot is a lie, designed to prevent her from having to testify about the Benghazi, Libya terrorist attack on September 11, which killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others.

So fun has been made, and accusations have been uttered, that Hillary is not really sick, that it is all a cover up!

Among those saying this on camera are:

Former Florida Congressman Allen West
Former United Nations Ambassador John Bolton
Conservative ideologue Laura Ingraham
Charles Krauthammer of Fox News Channel
Bill O’Reilly of Fox News Channel
Sean Hannity of Fox News Channel
Rush Limbaugh, radio talk show host

And this is just a short list of cynics, who have no common decency, no compassion, no humanity, and know very well that the Libya matter is all conjured up, not a real issue. But it is the view of the right wing wingnuts that they must attack Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, Barack Obama, Michelle Obama, Joe Biden and other Democrats, simply because they are alive and breathing!

Nothing will stop the nasty, insulting, disgraceful behavior of Republicans and conservative ideologues in their mission to destroy America through character assassination of our political leaders, as long as they are Democrats!

Evaluating Woodrow Wilson A Century After His Election To The Presidency, And On His 156th Birthday Commemoration!

Woodrow Wilson, our 28th President, was born on this day in 1856, and was elected President in the four way race of 1912, running against Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, and Eugene Debs, arguably the most exciting Presidential election in American History.

The President with the least government experience, only two years as Governor of New Jersey; the only earned PH. D. to become President; the first President elected who grew up in the South (Virginia) since the Civil War; the President to face the greatest war crisis since Abraham Lincoln; the President who emphasized the importance of international affairs and the need for an international organization to promote peace; the President who was the culmination of the Progressive reform movements of the early 20th century; and the President who promoted successfully his domestic agenda, and then took on Theodore Roosevelt’s even more advanced progressive ideas and made them his own—this President has also been bitterly attacked by many for his shortcomings in many areas, and particularly has been viciously attacked by right wing conservatives, including Glenn Beck and George Will, who have torn his image to shreds.

Well, the question is whether the attacks on Wilson are fair and just, so that requires a careful examination of the positive and negative aspects of his Presidency.

Let’s start with the negative points that can be made about Wilson, and they are plenty!

1. Wilson was a white supremacist, despite his stellar education, and failed to treat people of African, Asian, and Latin American heritage in a dignified way, whether in the nation or with foreign nations overseas. His treatment of China, Japan, Mexico, Haiti and governments of other nations outside of Europe were treated in an insensitive and unacceptable manner, and he issued an executive order mandating segregation of the races in Washington, DC, and failed to recognize the contributions of soldiers of other than the Caucasian race during World War I. He legitimized and set back mistreatment of African Americans for another thirty years, until progress was made by President Harry Truman after World War II.

2. Wilson, inexplicably, opposed the woman suffrage movement, and had suffragettes arrested for disturbing the peace in their marches on Pennsylvania Avenue near the White House. Theodore Roosevelt had proposed this constitutional change in his 1912 Progressive Party campaign, but Wilson never moved in that direction on his own. Despite his opposition, the 19th Amendment was added at the end of his term in 1920.

3. Wilson had a horrible record on civil liberties in wartime, promoting passage of the Espionage Act, Sedition Act, and numerous other laws violating freedom of speech and press. He displayed total intolerance toward critics, once America was at war, and is regarded as one of the absolutely worst Presidents on the subject of civil liberties overall for his eight years in office.

4. Wilson was intolerant of opposition in Congress, refusing to work with Republicans when events worked against him, and tended to see things in religious terms, with him having God behind him, and often invoking religion in his speeches and comments. So he was seen as manipulative and deceitful in his actions and words that took us to ultimate war in 1917, and refused to negotiate on the Versailles Treaty after the war.

5. Wilson had a supreme, and self righteous ego, and this made him blind to reality much of the time, as when he had a severe paralytic stroke, but refused, along with his second wife, to keep Vice President Thomas Marshall informed, or to consider resigning in 1919-1921 so that the nation would have a President capable of leading the nation in the difficult post war days, when Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer led the Red Scare or Palmer Raids, another massive violation of civil liberties, which helped to spur the creation of the Civil Liberties Union in 1920. The nation was basically leaderless for a period of 18 months, as Wilson slowly recovered and even thought of running for an unprecedented third term despite his poor health.

Now to the positive side of Woodrow Wilson!

1. Wilson was the most successful President in domestic policy achievements up to his time in office, and only surpassed later by Franklin D. Roosevelt in the 1930s and Lyndon B. Johnson in the 1960s. He accomplished all of his original domestic agenda, including legislation that has stood the test of time, despite criticism by conservatives and Republicans over the years, including the Federal Reserve Act, the Federal Trade Commission Act, and the Clayton Anti Trust Act, as well as the first attempt at so called “free trade”, the lowering of tariff walls on foreign goods.

2. Wilson also accomplished the passage of laws originally promoted by Theodore Roosevelt in 1912, including the temporary end of child labor, protection for some workers on hours, workers compensation, and the protection of the merchant marine workers who are employed on ships offshore. Also, the first real attempt at agricultural aid to farmers to encourage expansion of acreage and the buying of new equipment, was also an idea promoted by TR. Basically, Wilson adopted much of the Populist Party and Progressive Party agenda of earlier times, and brought Progressive reform to its peak in the period before the conservative 1920s.

3. Wilson dealt with a war that was the most massive for America in 50 years, and was skilled enough to keep America out of war for two years and eight months after World War I began in Europe, but his role in the eventual entrance of America is still highly disputed even today, seen by some as dishonest and deceptive, but praised by many others as the best one could have expected.

4. Wilson had a vision of a peaceful post war world, and saw an international organization, the League of Nations, as the most important accomplishment of the Treaty of Versailles, and was stunned by the rejection of the US Senate to any international commitment, with America going into isolation. But his vision came to fruition a generation after his passing, with the establishment of the United Nations, but with many conservatives and Republicans bitterly opposed today in the US involvement in that international organization.

5. Wilson comes across, despite his many faults and shortcomings as worthy, in the minds of most experts, to be rated in the top ten of all Presidents–number 6 in the C Span 2000 poll and number 9 in the 2009 C Span Followup poll, and this despite bitter condemnation by so many right wing sources who only emphasize the evil side of Wilson, and give him no credit for his accomplishments. There is no question, however, that he had an important impact on the growth of Presidential power, the exact reason why the right wing hates his guts.

This blogger and author understands the mixed legacy of Woodrow Wilson, but still sees him as an influential President, who still impacts America a century after his first election to the Presidency!

So Happy Birthday, President Wilson, a man we will hear a lot about as we commemorate the major events of his administration over the next eight years from March 4, 1913, to March 4, 1921!

The Case For A Team Of John Kerry And Chuck Hagel As Barack Obama’s National Security Team

President Barack Obama has already faced problems with his thought to appoint UN Ambassador Susan Rice to the State Department, and she dropped out and allowed him to move toward the appointment of Senator John Kerry, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and 2004 Democratic Presidential nominee, to be his Secretary of State, but not yet announced officially.

But now, his planned but unannounced appointment of former Republican Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska to be his Secretary of Defense in his second term as President is meeting resistance.

The point to be made is that any President should be able to choose his team, particularly a National Security team, that fits his desires, and therefore, automatically, the President should be given slack to pick who he wishes.

The opposition to Hagel comes from those in the Pentagon who do not like that Hagel has said in the past that there is waste in the Defense Department that can be cut, a statement which has absolute validity. It is clear that Hagel would widh to “clean house” if he came to the Pentagon, but that is good, and should not be a reason to deny him the post.

Also, the Pro Israel Lobby, and particulary AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee), is against Hagel because he has, at times, in the US Senate, been critical of Israeli policy in the West Bank, building Jewish settlements.

While certainly AIPAC can have its views on any nominee, it should not be allowed to deny a President who he wants, and the important point, that is necessary to say again and again, is that under no circumstances will Barack Obama and his government ever allow any harm to Israel, and this was made very clear in the recent Gaza Strip events when the IRON DOME system provided and financed by the United States, saved Israel from greater attack. But our government cannot and should not feel that it can be dictated to by ANY foreign government or pressure group to have to agree one hundred percent on every action and statement of a foreign government!

Also, in favor of Hagel, as well as Kerry, is that both were Vietnam War veterans, and understand the horrors of war, and it is great to have two such men, both having served in the Senate, and possessing great principles and courage, to head our National Security team under President Obama in his second term.

So, hopefully, the soon announcement of the appointments of Kerry and Hagel will be forthcoming!

Best Team For America’s Future Security: John Kerry For Secretary Of State, And Chuck Hagel For Secretary Of Defense

In the midst of the “Fiscal Cliff” battle, President Obama is also deep into Cabinet selection, and it was heartening to hear that former Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel, a Republican who served in Vietnam and became an acknowledged expert on foreign policy in his years on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has been at the White House, and is a hot candidate for Secretary of Defense.

This author has long raved about the credentials of Hagel, and suggested him for the cabinet in the first term, and it now seems more likely that he might become the head of the Pentagon when Leon Panetta leaves soon.

This would be continuing the tradition of past Democratic Presidents to decide to choose reputable Republicans for the Defense Department, and it even goes back to when it was called the War Department before 1947.

The historical record shows Franklin D. Roosevelt having Henry Stimson, former Secretary of State under Herbert Hoover, as his Secretary of War, along with Frank Knox, who had been the Republican Vice Presidential nominee in 1936, being named Secretary of the Navy, both in 1940, when Great Britain was being attacked by the German Air Force in World War II, and the threat to America was seen as dire by many as a result.

John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson utilized Robert McNamara as Secretary of Defense in the 1960’s.

Bill Clinton had former Maine Senator William Cohen, a responsible and reputable Republican Senator, as his Secretary of Defense in the second term, and he received kudos for his performance.

And Robert Gates, George W. Bush’s second Secretary of Defense, became Barack Obama’s first Secretary of Defense, and did a wonderful job for more than two years.

So the reasoning to pick Hagel is clearly there, but to make the foreign policy-defense team complete, the President also needs to choose Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, a Vietnam War veteran too, and 2004 Democratic Party Presidential nominee, to replace Hillary Clinton at the State Department, after 28 years of service in the US Senate, and chairmanship of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Kerry has had a distinguished career, and would be an excellent choice, and the team of Kerry and Hagel would be sensational.

In a time of trouble and turmoil, America needs its strongest team on national security, and Kerry and Hagel fit the bill, without any question or doubt.

Susan Rice, the UN Ambassador, is also outstanding in many ways, but quite frankly, is not on the same level as Kerry, and her nomination would cause unnecessary turmoil over the issue of Libya, a sad commentary, but a distraction which should not be allowed to continue by choosing her, when Kerry is really a better choice!

So, Mr. President, pick John Kerry for State and Chuck Hagel for Defense, and America will be very well served at Foggy Bottom and the Pentagon!

Losing Major Party Presidential Nominees And Their Futures: A Summary

Losing Presidential nominees usually go on to a future public career, with a few exceptions.

William Jennings Bryan, three time nominee in 1896, 1900, and 1908, went on to become Secretary of State for two years under President Woodrow Wilson.

Alton B Parker, the losing candidate in 1904, went on to become temporary chairman and keynote speaker at the 1912 Democratic National Convention.

Charles Evans Hughes, the losing nominee in 1916, went on to become Secretary of State under Presidents Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge, and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court under Presidents Herbert Hoover and Franklin D. Roosevelt.

James Cox, the losing nominee in 1920, built up a newspaper empire, Cox Enterprises, which would become very influential in the world of journalism, and still is, as the publisher of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution and the Palm Beach Post, as well as cable television and internet enterprises under his heirs.

John W. Davis, the losing 1924 nominee, had a distinguished career as a lawyer who argued cases before the Supreme Court, including being in the losing side of the famous school integration case, Brown V. Board Of Education Of Topeka, Kansas in 1954, and the Youngstown Steel Case of 1952, ruling against President Truman’s seizure of the steel mills during the Korean War. He was on the side opposing school integration and Presidential power, being a true Jeffersonian conservative throughout his life.

Alfred E. Smith, the 1928 losing nominee, became head of the corporation which built the Empire State Building in 1931, and was an active opponent of Franklin D.Roosevelt and his New Deal.

Al Landon, the losing 1936 nominee, spoke up on foreign policy issues as World War II came on, but spent his life in the oil industry, playing a very limited role in public life after the war.

Wendell Willkie, the losing 1940 nominee, proceeded to write a book about his vision of the postwar world, and was thinking of running again in 1944, but died early in that year.

Thomas E. Dewey, the losing nominee in 1944 and 1948, continued to serve as Governor of New York, and was a power player in the Republican Party after his time in office.

Adlai Stevenson, the 1952 and 1956 losing nominee, went on to serve as United Nations Ambassador under Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson.

Barry Goldwater, the losing 1964 nominee, went back to the US Senate, and served three more terms in office.

Hubert Humphrey, the losing 1968 nominee, went back to the Senate and served seven more years in that body.

George McGovern, the losing 1972 nominee, went on to serve eight more years in the US Senate, and kept active in work for the United Nations in various agencies.

Walter Mondale, the losing nominee in 1984, went on to serve as Ambassador to Japan under President Bill Clinton.

Michael Dukakis, the losing nominee in 1988, went back to two more years as Governor of Massachusetts, and also has served as a professor at various institutions, including Northeastern University and Florida Atlantic University.

Bob Dole, the losing 1996 nominee, has engaged in much public activity, including fighting hunger with fellow former nominee George McGovern, and is seen as an elder statesman who is greatly respected.

Al Gore, the losing 2000 nominee, went on to become an advocate for action on climate change and global warming, and also created the cable channel called CURRENT.

John Kerry, the losing 2004 nominee, has continued his distinguished career in the Senate, and may be tapped to join President Obama’s cabinet as Secretary of State or Secretary of Defense.

John McCain, the losing 2008 nominee, has continued his career in the Senate, being last reelected to a six year term in 2010.

The question is what, if any role, Mitt Romney will have in public life, with no hint at this point that he intends any, even after his White House meeting this week with President Barack Obama.

John McCain Losing All Respect And Credibility Over Benghazi–Susan Rice Controversy

Senator John McCain of Arizona, the 2008 GOP Presidential nominee, once was treated with great respect, but it is apparent that he is now on a tirade against the Obama Administration in a way that reflects on him in a horrible manner.

McCain has totally politicized the tragedy of the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens, along with three others, in Benghazi, Libya, at the American Consulate in that city on September 11.

The fact that United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice, in an interview on a Sunday talk show, gave information from the Central Intelligence Agency that turned out to be inaccurate, has been used as a weapon by McCain, Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, New York Congressman Peter King, and many other Republicans as an excuse to question Susan Rice’s qualifications to be a potential Secretary of State in the second term of Barack Obama, with McCain claiming that Rice is not very smart, and ridiculing her credentials in a very dismissive manner.

President Obama has come to her defense, and has made it clear that he might elevate Rice to the State Department, and has clearly expressed his disgust with McCain, Graham and others for their personal attack on a good public servant, who was simply reporting what the CIA head, David Petraeus, had told her the weekend after the tragic event.

McCain has said he would personally block her nomination to be Secretary of State, so there may be a confrontation in the making.

This massively insulting and stupid behavior by McCain brings a few ideas to mind.

1. Is McCain still showing resentment and envy because Barack Obama defeated him in 2008?

2. Does McCain realize how ridiculous he sounds, regarding Rice’s not being smart and having a lack of qualifications, when he had the temerity to give us Sarah Palin as his Vice Presidential running mate, creating the fear of this supremely unqualified woman being a heartbeat away from the Presidency, and still defends his terrible choice to this day?

3. Also, McCain’s increasingly erratic behavior, and his growing anger and rage, and irrational stands on many issues, can make one wonder if he is starting to lose it mentally, and is in early stages of Alzheimers Disease. It makes one thankful he did not win the Presidency four years ago, and also makes one remember the thought at that time that his well known temper tantrums could be a sign of mental illness, caused by his imprisonment and torture in North Vietnam forty years ago during the Vietnam War.

The point is that there is a case that can be made that John McCain has passed his prime, and should consider resigning, due to his advanced age and weird behavior!

A Fascinating Idea! Former Republican Senators Richard Lugar And Chuck Hagel As Secretary Of State And Secretary Of Defense In Second Obama Term!

A fascinating idea has surfaced, which is very exciting in many ways.

It is clear that there will be a reshuffling of President Obama’s cabinet over the next few months, and two openings will certainly be likely in the State Department and the Defense Department.

For State, it has been suggested that Senator John Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and 2004 Democratic Presidential nominee, might take the post. Also, Susan Rice, United Nations Ambassador, is mentioned. Both would be wonderful in the position.

BUT there is a school of thought that IF President Obama wanted to show bipartisanship, he could do what Franklin D. Roosevelt did in World War II–pick Republicans who are intelligent, sane, responsible, and who are no longer serving in the Senate, to serve in his cabinet, and the State Department would offer a great location to put soon to be former Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana, an acknowledged foreign policy expert, and a man who has worked well with Obama when they were both Senators, and went off to Russia to promote the safe collection of nuclear weapons stockpiles in 2005-2006. Lugar is a wonderful statesman, and would fill the job with excellence and professionalism. And he has been, like Kerry, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman in the past, and is still the ranking member of the committee until he leaves the Senate in January.

Additionally, as suggested earlier, former Republican Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, a Vietnam War veteran and military expert, would be an excellent choice to serve in the Pentagon as Secretary of Defense. Always highly regarded and respected, Hagel would add stature to our Defense Department.

Such appointments would neutralize, to a great extent, Republican attacks on President Obama in the areas of foreign policy, national security, and defense policy.

If FDR could have Republicans Henry Stimson as Secretary of War, and Frank Knox as Secretary of the Navy in 1940 and after, why cannot Barack Obama make a smart move that would help his administration to succeed, and also promote bipartisanship, at a time when it is desperately needed?

Rumors Of Replacements For State Department And Defense Department: John Kerry Or Susan Rice, And Chuck Hagel?

As the second Obama Administration is being organized, there are many rumors about members of the Cabinet leaving.

Among them are Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, and the suggestions being discussed are very intriguing.

It is thought that Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, the 2004 Democratic Presidential nominee, might be angling for the State Department, with his years of experience as Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman as his major credential. Also, United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice is a second thought.

If Kerry left the Senate, it would open up his seat, and Republican Senator Scott Brown, who just lost his seat to Elizabeth Warren, would certainly campaign for it, against an unknown Democrat.

And if Rice received the position, she would be the fourth woman to be in that position, and the second black woman, and the third black person—following Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, as well as Madeleine Albright and Hillary Clinton.

For the Defense Department, if and when Panetta leaves, the rumor is that former Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel, a Republican, and very reputable, would take the position, and that would mark the second Republican Secretary of Defense for Obama, after Robert Gates.

Having both Kerry and Hagel as important cabinet members would be fantastic, and if Rice was selected, she would also be the second black woman in that position with the name of Rice!

American Jews, Israel And Barack Obama: Why Two Thirds Of Jews Will Support Obama Over Mitt Romney

With two days to go until the election, the Republican Jewish Coalition has been actively trying to convince American Jews that Barack Obama is not supportive of Israel, and that they should support Mitt Romney for President.

Will the RJC succeed? To some extent, yes, in the sense that while 78 percent of American Jews backed Barack Obama in 2008, the number will be down to about 60-63 percent in 2012.

There are those Jews who are extremely wealthy and do not wish to pay more taxes, such as the group which met in Boca Raton, at the infamous gathering where Romney talked about the “47 percent”. Those who are corporate, Wall Street, and banking related will wish to have the government abandon any regulations, so they can go about their merry way abusing their industries, as they did in 2008. and earlier, without any care for the damage they were doing to the American economy!

Those who are highly religious will use it as a means to promote prejudice, based on the belief that Obama is a secret Muslim, and of course, being black, is not a plus to highly religious people, whether Jewish or Christian, a sad commentary on what the meaning of religion is all about!

Those who look at Israel as the number one issue will wish to allow Benjamin Netanyahu to influence American policy, even though if any other foreign leader ever attempted to interfere as Netanyahu has, they would be infuriated by such boldness of a foreign leader!

But American Jews, while caring about Israel, will not allow Netanyahu, or religiosity, or counting their money, to be the key factors in their voting. So yes, the percentage will be down, but Jews who do not allow any of the above to influence them will remember that Obama and his party are the party of the New Deal and Great Society reforms, which Romney and the Republicans wish to destroy!

They will know that it was REPUBLICAN Presidents who made life much more difficult for Israel, including Dwight D. Eisenhower, George H. W. Bush, and George W. Bush, even though the RJC conveniently manipulates the truth about that

They will know that Defense Minister Ehud Barak (a former Prime Minister); Shimon Peres (Israel’s President); Haaretz (the oldest Israeli daily newspaper); Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel; and most prominent American Jewish leaders have all endorsed Obama, or said that he has been the best friend of Israel of all American Presidents.

They will know that most American Presidents either never visited Israel, or not in their first term, despite the lies of the RJC.

They will know that Obama has supplied Israel with the IRONDOME missile defense system, and more than $3.1 billion in security spending beyond that, and has defended Israel consistently in international organizations, including the United Nations.

They know that George W. Bush also talked about the 1967 borders as a beginning point for negotiations, the same thing that Barack Obama said.

They know the Jewish tradition of being activists in civil rights; of supporting women’s rights; of being big promoters of labor unions; of being involved in promoting education and the environment on a regular basis; and advocates of aid to the disabled; and of always being against the negativism of the Republican Party on domestic matters, always resisting Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid and every other social, economic and political reform the Democrats have promoted over the past century.

They know that the party of the people is NOT the Republicans, but the Democrats, and they are not about to abandon the party that has done so much good, particularly when we could see the alternative of the most right wing threat in American history since Barry Goldwater in 1964!

American Jews are OVERWHELMINGLY oriented toward reform, progress, change, compassion for those who are discriminated against and less fortunate, and they are intelligent and wise enough not to vote for the party of Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan and right wing evangelicals who wish to take away our civil liberties and civil rights!

So close to two thirds of American Jews will repudiate the RJC, and support their President, Barack Obama!