ThinkProgress Logo

Security

Newt Gingrich: Palestinians Are An ‘Invented’ People

By Eli Clifton on Dec 9, 2011 at 8:00 pm

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich is courting the Republican Jewish vote with a series of statements showing his unwavering support for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and pro-Israel American conservatives. On Wednesday, he declared that he would appoint former U.N. ambassador — and outspoken über-hawk — John Bolton to be Secretary of State if elected president. In an interview released today, he struck out an even more extreme position by declaring Palestinians “an…invented people.”

He told The Jewish Channel:

We’ve had an invented Palestinian people who are in fact Arabs and are historically part of the Arab community and they had a chance to go many places. And for a variety of political reasons we have sustained this war against Israel since the 1940s. It’s tragic.

Watch it:

Gingrich, much like former Senator Rick Santorum, is effectively denying the right of Palestinians to a state, a position that goes against the policy positions of the Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama administrations.

With this assertion comes questions as to where Gingrich thinks the Palestinian — or “Arabs” as he refers to them — should go. Will residents of the West Bank gain full voting rights in a unified Israeli state? Will Israel allow them to stay as second-class citizens with limited voting and legal rights? Or is he in favor of forced deportation?

Gingrich isn’t the only GOP presidential candidate to stake out political ground which, if actually implemented as U.S. policy, would effectively end U.S. support for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Gingrich, Mitt Romney, and Rick Perry have all endorsed moving the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and Michele Bachmann claims to “already have secured a donor who said they will personally pay for the ambassador’s home to be moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.”

NEWS FLASH

Economists: Europe Is Headed For Six Quarters Of Recession | As Europe seeks to patch together a deal to keep the Eurozone together, economists at Citigroup see the continent headed for a long recession. “Our economists believe the sovereign debt and banking crises are causing a renewed recession in the Euro Area,” reads the analysis. “Beginning in 4Q 2012, they forecast real GDP to contract for 6 consecutive quarters. It is expected to be an especially protracted recession. Not even in Japan, during its lost decades, did real GDP decline for 6 consecutive quarters.”

Security

INTERVIEW: Lanny Davis Rejects Business Partner Josh Block’s Smears Against CAP, Defends His Lobbying Work

By Eli Clifton on Dec 9, 2011 at 7:20 pm

Lanny Davis, a leading lobbyist and former special counsel to President Bill Clinton, responded to the recent controversy surrounding Josh Block, a former American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) spokesperson and current Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) fellow who compiled thousands of words of opposition research on ThinkProgress and Media Matters bloggers and smeared the Center for American Progress as writing “borderline anti-Semitic stuff.” Davis, a business partner of Block’s, told ThinkProgress:

He’s done this all independently without any input from me. I respect Josh Block but I 100 percent disagree with much of his language. People can disagree about Israel’s policies without being anti-Semites. In fact I think it’s a terrible mistake to blur the two. We should be able to debate Israel’s policies. I am very pro-Israel. I believe the onus for negotiations is on the Palestinians but both Israelis and Palestinians share responsibility. However, that’s all fair debate. Israelis debate the subject. We debate the subject. Impugning motives of people at the Center [for American Progress] and impugning [that] those motives are driven by anti-Semitism is, in my opinion, wrong. I respect John Podesta and the Center greatly.

In our post yesterday on Block, we explained that Davis “represented business interests backing the 2009 coup in Honduras.” In an interview today, Davis responded, “I am on the record as having opposed the illegal and indefensible deportation of Mr. Zelaya. Suggestions that I supported a military coup are simply false.”

Davis also defended his lobbying work for the Ivory Coast, telling ThinkProgress, “The Ivory Coast Embassy in DC retained me, not Mr. Gbagbo. My mission, among other things, working behind the scenes for ten days before I quit, was to facilitate a phone call from the President of the United States to Mr. Gbagbo to bring about a face saving effort to avoid bloodshed.”

Security

Josh Block Backs Down From False Accusation That ThinkProgress And CAP Are Anti-Semitic

By Ali Gharib on Dec 9, 2011 at 6:40 pm

josh-blockFormer AIPAC spokesman and Progressive Policy Institute senior fellow Josh Block backed down this afternoon from his earlier accusation that ThinkProgress and its institutional home, the Center For American Progress (CAP), are anti-Semitic — a smear that was picked-up by, among others, Jennifer Rubin at the Washington Post. (Tell the Post to retract that standing accusation here.)

Speaking to Politico’s Ben Smith for an article released on Wednesday, Block said that CAP “allow(s) people to say borderline anti-Semitic stuff.” In an effort to coordinate and “AMPLIFY” smears of ThinkProgress and CAP based on this claim and others, Block enlisted members of a secretive right-wing e-mail list serve. Salon’s Justin Elliott obtained and published a copy of the e-mail, where Block said CAP engages in “vilification of… Jews.” In the same document, he insinuated that CAP and ThinkProgress’s work constitutes “the words of anti-Semites.”

CAP and ThinkProgress categorically deny these allegations, and took exception to the mischaracterizations of our work.

Now, again speaking to Politico’s Smith, Block says he never claimed CAP engaged in anti-Semitism:

I’ve been accused of leveling the charge of anti-Semitism against the Center for American Progress. That is not true, and suggesting so is an attempt to distract from what I am actually saying.

As shown above, Block certainly did make such accusations about CAP. Nevertheless, his retreat from his initial charges against ThinkProgress and CAP is welcome.

Instead of engaging in divisive rhetoric aimed at silencing those who disagree with his approach, we look forward to having a substantive, rational discourse about the best ways to pursue the U.S. interests of a safe and secure Israel living side-by-side and at peace with her neighbors.

Economy

The NLRB Dropping Its Boeing Case Is A Victory For Collective Bargaining, Not Conservatives

By Pat Garofalo on Dec 9, 2011 at 6:35 pm

The National Labor Relations Board today dropped a complaint against mega-manufacturer Boeing that had been used as a political football by Republicans for months. Of course, the GOP rushed forward to hail this as some sort of win for conservatism.

2012 GOP presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich called it “a victory for South Carolina and all right-to-work states,” while Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) said it is “a victory for American manufacturers, workers and the cause of job creation.”

Ever since the NLRB first filed the complaint, the GOP has mischaracterized it as having something to do with so-called “right-to-work” states, states where workers are allowed to free-ride on union contracts. However, the actual complaint was about whether or not Boeing moved a production line from Washington to South Carolina in retaliation against workers for striking.

It is illegal to shift production in order to retaliate against workers, and Boeing executives, on-tape, pretty clearly said that their motive for moving to South Carolina was to do just that. As Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick wrote, “there is ample precedent for the argument that threatening to move facilities because of strikes is illegal under the National Labor Relations Act. And certainly the NLRB might reasonably have taken a Boeing executive at his word when he told the Seattle Times (on video!) that this was precisely what motivated the relocation.”

However, Boeing and its workers this week completed a new contract, in which the company agreed to build a new line of airplanes in Washington:

About 74 percent supported the contract on Wednesday in a ballot among 31,000 union members, mostly in the Seattle area, who accepted the surprise proposal unveiled last week.

Boeing plans to increase output by 60 percent after four union walkouts since 1989 delayed hundreds of deliveries. Workers were promised that a revamped 737 jet would be built at a current factory near Seattle, and the union requested that the N.L.R.B. retract the complaint filed over a new 787 plant in South Carolina.

The moral of the story is that collective bargaining worked and the workers in Washington will not be unfairly punished by Boeing for exercising their rights. “Both sides were faced with uncertainty and real losses, and the nature of collective bargaining is seizing the moment,” said Harley Shaiken, a labor professor at the University of California at Berkeley. “The agreement reached between Boeing and workers in Washington demonstrates that the law that protects workers’ rights is vital to our economy and necessary to enforce,” Rep. George Miller (D-CA) added.

NLRB’s dropping of the complaint doesn’t mean that the initial charge was without merit or that union-busting is any less of a concern. It signals that the workers were able to work through their differences with the company, rendering the complaint unnecessary. Contrary to everything Republicans, at both the federal and state level have been saying for the last two years, collective bargaining is a critical tool to ensure a fair deal for workers, and the case with Boeing reflects that reality.

Climate Progress

76 Percent Of Religious Americans Want A Global Pact Cutting Pollution, Viewing It In Moral And Religious Terms

By Rebecca Leber on Dec 9, 2011 at 6:29 pm

With climate denial running rampant in the GOP field, Mitt Romney claimed just today that scientists may figure out if humans are causing warming “10, 20, 50 years from now.” Except scientists have already figured that out, and a majority of Americans want action, including religious Americans. A new University of Maryland poll finds that 76 percent of Catholics and evangelicals support a global pact reducing the pollution that causes global warming, much like the one on the table in Durban, South Africa.

If such an agreement is ever reached, religious Americans say they would stand by it with conviction. Of the 1,500 people surveyed, 57 percent said that violating a treaty would be morally wrong. About 17 percent see it as a sin, requiring atonement to avoid everlasting consequences…

In [the University of Maryland] poll, 76 percent of respondents said preventing climate change is an important goal. Among them, 32 percent said it falls within their obligation to protect God’s creation. A bigger group, at 44 percent, didn’t think of it as an obligation. But it was important to defend against rising temperatures nonetheless.

The outright religious support for a global agreement contrasts with the political posturing we have seen heading into 2012. But what’s clear is a majority of Americans, religious or not, understand climate change is a threat and view it as a moral or religious problem.

Security

Romney Previously Said Iraq Withdrawal Is An ‘Astonishing Failure,’ Now It’s ‘Appropriate’

By Ben Armbruster on Dec 9, 2011 at 5:33 pm

When President Obama announced in October that he was ordering all U.S. troops out of Iraq by the end of the year, Mitt Romney’s campaign issued a statement assailing the president, calling his decision an “astonishing failure”:

“President Obama’s astonishing failure to secure an orderly transition in Iraq has unnecessarily put at risk the victories that were won through the blood and sacrifice of thousands of American men and women. The unavoidable question is whether this decision is the result of a naked political calculation or simply sheer ineptitude in negotiations with the Iraqi government. The American people deserve to hear the recommendations that were made by our military commanders in Iraq.”

Yet today during an interview with the Des Moines Register editorial board, Romney backtracked. Immediately after criticizing Obama for not keeping up to 30,000 troops in Iraq, the former Massachusetts governor said the withdrawal is the right move:

ROMNEY: With regards to Iraq, of course we’re following the Bush timeline with one exception and that is the [blank space] President Bush and I believe others anticipated that we would have an ongoing force, somewhere between 10 and 20 and 30,000 there to help with the transition. President Obama’s own Secretary of Defense suggested that would be the case and they were unable to negotiate a status of forces agreement to allow the 10 to 20 to 30,000 troops to remain which I think was a failure on the part of the administration. But is the wind down in Iraq appropriate? Yes.

Watch it:

It seems like Romney and Newt Gingrich are in stiff competition for this year’s top GOP flip-flopper. Gingrich’s recent Iraq reversal clocked in at an impressive 13 seconds. Perhaps Romney is trying to reclaim the mantle.

NEWS FLASH

House GOP Unemployment Benefits Bill Includes Provision Allowing Mandatory Drug Tests | Yesterday, ThinkProgress reported that House Republicans were considering subjecting the unemployed to drug tests before they would pass a necessary extension of unemployment benefits. Today, House Ways & Means Chairman Dave Camp (R-MI) released the House GOP’s actual proposal, and it does indeed include a provision on mandatory drug testing. Rather than mandate drug tests in all 50 states, however, the bill permits states to mandate drug tests on their own. It’s not clear how House Republicans expect states to get around the fact that conditioning benefits on drug testing has consistently been struck down by courts as unconstitutional.

Economy

Romney Admits All His Income Comes From Investments, Which Helps Him Pay A Low Tax Rate

By Pat Garofalo on Dec 9, 2011 at 5:25 pm

When President Obama introduced the “Buffett rule,” aimed at ensuring that millionaires and billionaires can’t pay a lower tax rate than middle-class families, 2012 GOP presidential contender Mitt Romney called it “class warfare,” adding that it is “simply the wrong way to go.” At the time, we noted that Romney may be sensitive to the Buffett Rule because it likely applies to him.

One of the major ways in which the wealthy are able to pay lower taxes than the middle-class is through the preferential treatment of investment income. The top capital gains tax rate of 15 percent — as opposed to the 35 percent top income tax rate — means that those wealthy individuals who make their money from investments pay a lower tax rate than middle-class families in the 28 percent or 25 percent brackets, and the same as those in the 15 percent bracket.

A Citizens for Tax Justice analysis found that Romney would have paid about a 14 percent tax rate in 2010, because of his millions in capital gains income.

Romney won’t release his tax returns, so it’s impossible to tell with complete precision what his tax rate actually is. However, during an interview today with the editorial board of the Des Moines Register, Romney said that all of his income is from interest, dividends and capital gains, meaning that the CTJ analysis of his tax plan likely has a lot of truth to it, if it doesn’t overestimate how much he paid:

My own calculation is, if that were the case, for anybody, no taxes on interest, dividends, and capital gains, I would have paid no taxes in the last ten years, because all my income is from dividends, interest, and capital gains.

Watch it:

So it would seem that there really is a Romney rule: lower taxes for investors like him than for working middle-class families. Romney claims that his economic plan would provide the middle-class with a tax cut because it completely eliminates the tax on capital gains for anyone making less than $200,000 annually. However, the vast majority of people who make that much have literally no capital gains income whatsoever.

NEWS FLASH

Rick Perry Explains Why Texans Don’t Need Health Insurance | “In the state of Texas, no one is not covered [with health insurance],” Rick Perry — governor of the state with the highest rate of uninsured residents in the country — explained to the Des Moines Register this afternoon. But he then caught himself and clarified, “Covered, is the wrong word. No one does not have access to some of the best health care in the world. The state and its legislature, through the election by the citizens, have put into place programs that do not require insurance or make it available in some cases.” In other words, since everyone has access to health care, it’s not neccessary for all to have health insurance coverage. Watch it:

Related Posts

Older

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up