Yesterday it was disclosed that for a few months, the guy in charge of the nuclear footballl during Clinton administration lost the codes and never informed the president or Joint chiefs.
Eye off the ball-Don't be distracted from the real issue/taking our eye off the ball.
The real issue-
bombs are headed for synagogues in Chicago and our US President
1. sends reps to a Moslem Brotherhood influenced conference in Chicago
see http://israelgreatest.blogspot.com/p/obama-and-israel.html
"At the end of September 2010, Chicago will become a destination point for the international community’s top Islamic representation which includes the entire top leadership of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) together with the top leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood in America. HYPERLINK “http://www.oicun.org/9/20100727101615770.html” http://www.oicun.org/9/20100727101615770.html In a post 11 September 2001 world, the red flag warning should be most clear that the Muslim Brotherhood is a high level national security concern for both Israel and the United States. The leadership of the OIC, Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Muslim Brotherhood are meeting at the American Islamic College in Chicago on the 28 to 30th of September 2010.
The notable who’s who in attendance list includes the full panoply of OIC leadership, the Obama Administration’s OIC liaisons Sada Cumber from the Bush Administration, and Rashad Hussain from the current administration, Dalia Mogahed and Farah Pandith from State Department, as well as Siraj Wahhaj, Ahmed Rehab of CAIR, etc."
Instead he should have sent the FBI to arrest everyone.
2. His State department has been lying about what it actually says in the UN and what it pretends it says when it communicates with US Jews
"In fact, it’s worse. The U.S. State Department has now adopted a practice honed by Israel’s Arab negotiating partners – saying different things to different audiences. The State Department is distributing for American consumption speeches that it claims were delivered in Israel’s defense at the recent session of the U.N. Human Rights Council. But the remarks American diplomats actually delivered to the U.N. audience, which President Obama so desperately seeks to impress, were strikingly different."
3. Is afraid to use "Islamic" terrorism language.
"from a Congressional candidate running vs a Farakhan backed Muslim Democrat in Indy.
“Our elite intelligence agencies have broken a global plot by radical Muslim terrorists to kill Jews and other Americans through transporting mail bombs in commercial carriers and attempting to blow up the Washington, D.C. metro/subway system. The men and women of our intelligence agencies have performed flawlessly; they have saved the lives of thousands of Americans.
We must call on President Obama and the Democratic administration to untie the hands of the intelligence community and allow them to re-use words such as “Radical Muslims,” “War on Terror,” “Muslim Jihadists,” “Radical Islamic Terrorists” and not use the meaningless phrase preferred by the administration, “man- made disaster.” By being explicit, the enemy can be swiftly identified and American lives will be saved here in America and abroad.
As your Congressman, I vow to be strong on national security, defend and protect our nation from its enemies and support our ally, the only democracy in the Middle East, The State of Israel.
Respectfully Submitted,
Dr. Marvin Scott, Candidate for United States Congress
Indianapolis, CD 7"
These 3 are just a tip of the iceberg of the nightmare and it will get much much worse once Obama gets spanked with huge Democratic losses Tuesday night and turns his wrath on Israel during his final 2 years in office. .
For details of how this should play out and how pro Israel forces can protect ourselves from him see http://israelgreatest.blogspot.com/p/obama-and-israel.html
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Obama blame Barney Frank for the previous disaster, not Bush
•It was Barney Frank who, as chairman of the Banking Committee in 2007, continued to push for home ownership even for people who couldn’t afford it. He prevented oversight and regulation, allowing people to rush into mortgages they never should’ve gotten.
•It was Barney Frank did absolutely nothing to rein in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. This ended in disaster, causing caused misery beyond description.
•It was Barney Frank who, as Chairman of the powerful Financial Services Committee, was in charge of overseeing Wall Street.
•It was Barney Frank who wrote the infamous $700 billion Wall Street Bailout bill.
•It was also Barney Frank who wrote the “regulations” that went easy on his Wall Street pals.
•It was Barney Frank did absolutely nothing to rein in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. This ended in disaster, causing caused misery beyond description.
•It was Barney Frank who, as Chairman of the powerful Financial Services Committee, was in charge of overseeing Wall Street.
•It was Barney Frank who wrote the infamous $700 billion Wall Street Bailout bill.
•It was also Barney Frank who wrote the “regulations” that went easy on his Wall Street pals.
Jewish religion is not liberalism
Liberalism Is Not Our Religion
102
ShareTuesday, October 26, 2010
Aryeh Rubin
Special To The Jewish Week
I believe in equality for all. I support civil rights, women’s rights, gay rights, universal health care, feeding the poor, social justice, separation of church and state, access to education, diversity, the arts, animal rights (I have not eaten meat or poultry in 33 years), and more. I marched against the war in Vietnam, protested the bombing in Cambodia, and advocated for affirmative action.
In terms of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I met with the Palestinian leadership, including Yasir Arafat, as part of my peace activism. I believed, up to a point, in Oslo, and maintain that while a failure, it was not a mistake. I am hopeful that the two sides will keep talking until there is a deal.
Still, I have not elevated liberalism to the status of religion. I do not blindly follow the liberal agenda and my convictions take a backseat to my commitment to the well-being of Israel and the Jewish people. Unfortunately, this is not the case for the majority of U.S. Jews, who have substituted liberalism for Judaism and whose actions are often governed by misguided priorities. In lieu of traditional Jewish belief or value systems, many American Jews have adopted what is essentially a theology of universalism and tikkun olam, or social justice. In doing so, much of American Jewry has essentially become de-Judaicized.
When the lives of my family, my friends, and my people are in jeopardy because we are Jewish, when there are very real threats to the continued existence of the State of Israel and by extension the Jewish people, when our enemies have declared that their intention is to annihilate us and are acquiring tools to this end with the world standing by, then my pro-humanist beliefs give way to my commitment to the sanctity and security of Israel and the Jewish people.
American Jewry’s loyalty to the liberal political dogma is disturbing when things are going well for the Jews. But when things are not going well, this behavior is self-destructive and helps our enemies.
The future of Israel is at stake. Not only is Israel threatened by the soon-to-be nuclear Iran and its satellites, but its right to exist is being questioned by a virulent, global delegitimization campaign that is being led and energized by the academic left and supported by the elements of the liberal wing. In not speaking out, many Jews are, in effect, endangering Israel and abdicating their responsibility as Jews.
Many American Jews have become distanced from Judaism’s larger core values and are uncomfortable making moral judgements concerning the distinction between good and evil, which is an inherent part of our heritage. In addition, many are uncomfortable with the notion of the exceptionalism of Israel, and even with the exceptionalism of the U.S.
Historically, the vulnerability of diaspora Jews led many to make a habit of ingratiating themselves to their non-Jewish hosts. For some Jews, this knee-jerk accommodation, while no longer a survival technique, seems to have become integrated into the genetic code — hence, the quintessential galut (diaspora) Jew. History has shown us over and over again that this approach is ultimately unsuccessful. Witness the tragic outcomes of previous golden ages of Jewry in Spain, France, and Germany. We must not allow these genes to express themselves; we must show strength and become proactive.
When our ancestors were permitted to exit the ghetto, they gravitated towards those expressing universalist ideas, which were most often part of the ideology of the left. It was from the universalists that they experienced the first indications of tolerance. It’s therefore not surprising that they proceeded to derive intellectual sustenance and a modicum of physical security from the left, hence our historic loyalty. But today it is the American right that has evolved to the point where it is much more philo-Semitic and more pro-Israel than the left. The hawks and the evangelicals among them are the most fervent supporters of the State of Israel. From the perspective of our own survival, we must gravitate to, and work with, those who wish us well and support our standing in the world.
Despite the pacifist attitude espoused by many children of Holocaust survivors, despite the anti-war rhetoric spouted by many of the Jewish baby boomers, and despite what for many of us is an innate opposition to war, ultimately it is only the strength of Israel that earns us the respect of our enemies. It is not our intellect, not our Nobel prizes, not our supposed financial acumen. As the Italian-Jewish intellectual Alain Elkann noted, the only antidote to Auschwitz is Israel — and its military might. As such, Israel is fighting not only for itself, but for all Jews. I would argue that by extension, it is fighting for the well-being of the Western world and its values.
Liberal Jews should be making the case for Israel as a bastion of liberal values. Israel is the only country in the Middle East with a free press. It is the only true democracy in the Middle East, with equal rights for women and, in practice, a refuge for gay Arab men from neighboring countries. In Israel there are no honor killings, no stonings, no capital punishment, no cutting off of the hands of thieves.
Throughout our history there have been Jews who have opted out, and this is an acceptable reality. What is not acceptable is that today, entire legions of Jews, in the name of liberalism, are in effect working against the survival of the Jewish people, whether out of ignorance, different priorities, or a lack of understanding of the global perspective.
Confronted with both old and new enemies seeking to destroy us, and vilified by anti-Zionism — anti-Semitism in new clothes — the majority of American Jewry needs to look in the mirror, re-examine its convictions and make a shift.
Abiding by one’s political philosophy, values and convictions is a noble way of living — but not when they are coming to chop your head off. At that point, and I believe we are there now, one’s moral and political compass needs to revert to survival mode.
Aryeh Rubin is the managing director of The Maot Group, an investment boutique in Miami, and president of the Targum Shlishi Foundation.
102
ShareTuesday, October 26, 2010
Aryeh Rubin
Special To The Jewish Week
I believe in equality for all. I support civil rights, women’s rights, gay rights, universal health care, feeding the poor, social justice, separation of church and state, access to education, diversity, the arts, animal rights (I have not eaten meat or poultry in 33 years), and more. I marched against the war in Vietnam, protested the bombing in Cambodia, and advocated for affirmative action.
In terms of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I met with the Palestinian leadership, including Yasir Arafat, as part of my peace activism. I believed, up to a point, in Oslo, and maintain that while a failure, it was not a mistake. I am hopeful that the two sides will keep talking until there is a deal.
Still, I have not elevated liberalism to the status of religion. I do not blindly follow the liberal agenda and my convictions take a backseat to my commitment to the well-being of Israel and the Jewish people. Unfortunately, this is not the case for the majority of U.S. Jews, who have substituted liberalism for Judaism and whose actions are often governed by misguided priorities. In lieu of traditional Jewish belief or value systems, many American Jews have adopted what is essentially a theology of universalism and tikkun olam, or social justice. In doing so, much of American Jewry has essentially become de-Judaicized.
When the lives of my family, my friends, and my people are in jeopardy because we are Jewish, when there are very real threats to the continued existence of the State of Israel and by extension the Jewish people, when our enemies have declared that their intention is to annihilate us and are acquiring tools to this end with the world standing by, then my pro-humanist beliefs give way to my commitment to the sanctity and security of Israel and the Jewish people.
American Jewry’s loyalty to the liberal political dogma is disturbing when things are going well for the Jews. But when things are not going well, this behavior is self-destructive and helps our enemies.
The future of Israel is at stake. Not only is Israel threatened by the soon-to-be nuclear Iran and its satellites, but its right to exist is being questioned by a virulent, global delegitimization campaign that is being led and energized by the academic left and supported by the elements of the liberal wing. In not speaking out, many Jews are, in effect, endangering Israel and abdicating their responsibility as Jews.
Many American Jews have become distanced from Judaism’s larger core values and are uncomfortable making moral judgements concerning the distinction between good and evil, which is an inherent part of our heritage. In addition, many are uncomfortable with the notion of the exceptionalism of Israel, and even with the exceptionalism of the U.S.
Historically, the vulnerability of diaspora Jews led many to make a habit of ingratiating themselves to their non-Jewish hosts. For some Jews, this knee-jerk accommodation, while no longer a survival technique, seems to have become integrated into the genetic code — hence, the quintessential galut (diaspora) Jew. History has shown us over and over again that this approach is ultimately unsuccessful. Witness the tragic outcomes of previous golden ages of Jewry in Spain, France, and Germany. We must not allow these genes to express themselves; we must show strength and become proactive.
When our ancestors were permitted to exit the ghetto, they gravitated towards those expressing universalist ideas, which were most often part of the ideology of the left. It was from the universalists that they experienced the first indications of tolerance. It’s therefore not surprising that they proceeded to derive intellectual sustenance and a modicum of physical security from the left, hence our historic loyalty. But today it is the American right that has evolved to the point where it is much more philo-Semitic and more pro-Israel than the left. The hawks and the evangelicals among them are the most fervent supporters of the State of Israel. From the perspective of our own survival, we must gravitate to, and work with, those who wish us well and support our standing in the world.
Despite the pacifist attitude espoused by many children of Holocaust survivors, despite the anti-war rhetoric spouted by many of the Jewish baby boomers, and despite what for many of us is an innate opposition to war, ultimately it is only the strength of Israel that earns us the respect of our enemies. It is not our intellect, not our Nobel prizes, not our supposed financial acumen. As the Italian-Jewish intellectual Alain Elkann noted, the only antidote to Auschwitz is Israel — and its military might. As such, Israel is fighting not only for itself, but for all Jews. I would argue that by extension, it is fighting for the well-being of the Western world and its values.
Liberal Jews should be making the case for Israel as a bastion of liberal values. Israel is the only country in the Middle East with a free press. It is the only true democracy in the Middle East, with equal rights for women and, in practice, a refuge for gay Arab men from neighboring countries. In Israel there are no honor killings, no stonings, no capital punishment, no cutting off of the hands of thieves.
Throughout our history there have been Jews who have opted out, and this is an acceptable reality. What is not acceptable is that today, entire legions of Jews, in the name of liberalism, are in effect working against the survival of the Jewish people, whether out of ignorance, different priorities, or a lack of understanding of the global perspective.
Confronted with both old and new enemies seeking to destroy us, and vilified by anti-Zionism — anti-Semitism in new clothes — the majority of American Jewry needs to look in the mirror, re-examine its convictions and make a shift.
Abiding by one’s political philosophy, values and convictions is a noble way of living — but not when they are coming to chop your head off. At that point, and I believe we are there now, one’s moral and political compass needs to revert to survival mode.
Aryeh Rubin is the managing director of The Maot Group, an investment boutique in Miami, and president of the Targum Shlishi Foundation.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Israel Pac endorses Pollak over Schakowky Ill-9
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
TO PROTECT OUR HERITAGE PAC ENDORSES JOEL POLLAK FOR ILLINOIS 9TH DISTRICT CONGRESSIONAL SEAT.
joel
On Sunday, October 17th, To Protect Our Heritage (TPOH) PAC, along with thirty co-sponsoring organizations, held a Candidates' Forum, giving 900 guests the opportunity to listen to Representative Jan Schakowsky (D-9th) and her opponent Joel Pollak answer in-depth questions about their stances and proposed Congressional actions involving Israel, its neighbors and the U.S. relationship. To Protect Our Heritage, the Midwest's oldest and largest bi-partisan, pro-Israel PAC, recognizes and welcomes that both candidates define themselves as strongly pro-Israel.
The PAC has endorsed and contributed to Rep. Schakowsky in the past because of her excellent voting record on Israel-related issues. We appreciate Rep. Schakowsky's stance, stated at the Forum, that an undivided city of Jerusalem is and will remain the capital of the Jewish State of Israel and that our country should promptly move our embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. We also appreciate her statement that Mohammad Abbas should immediately recognize Israel as a Jewish state in return for a two-month continuation of Israel's moratorium on additional building of homes in the West Bank, as offered by Benjamin Netanyahu.
However, following the forum, the TPOH candidate selection committee conferred and chose to endorse Joel Pollak for the 9th District U.S. Congressional seat because his responses to the questions showed him to be an articulate and unwavering LEADER for the U.S.-Israel relationship. While we appreciate Rep. Schakowsky's history of affirmative votes on legislation introduced by others, we are convinced that Joel Pollak will be a stronger advocate for the critical relationship between our country and Israel. In seeking out ways to strengthen the ties and protect Israel, he will be helping both nations.
In response to the question "What two pieces of Israel-related legislation will you propose if you are in the House of Representatives next February?" Pollak advocated (1) ceasing U.S. funding of the U.N. Human Rights Council, whose leadership has included many of the world's most sadistic tyrants and whose primary function and accomplishment for years has been to condemn Israel - while ignoring real human rights violations throughout the rest of the world, and (2) making a clear statement to Iran that the U.S. considers Israel an ally like NATO allies and thus "a strike against Israel would be a strike against the U.S." Although Rep. Schakowsky mentioned reaffirming the U.S. commitment to Israel, she offered no specifics. We note that in her twelve years in Congress she has not authored any legislation on Israel.
Problematic are Rep. Schakowsky's strong ties with individuals and groups such as J Street, whose members came as a group to cheer her at the forum. J Street has labeled itself as pro-Israel; however, its underlying mission has been revealed to be the weakening of bi-partisan Congressional support for Israel by, among other tactics, drawing away Democratic support for that relationship. J Street leadership has come out not only against AIPAC (American Public Affairs Committee) on various congressional initiatives but has ridiculed and attacked some of Israel's strongest defenders, such as Elie Wiesel, Alan Dershowitz, and Joe Lieberman. Israel's Ambassador Michael Oren characterized J Street as "a unique problem in that it not only opposes one policy of one Israeli government, it opposes all policies of all Israeli governments...This is not a matter of settlements here [or] there. We understand there are differences of opinion, but when it comes to the survival of the Jewish state, there should be no differences of opinion." J Street has recently been exposed as deceiving the public by presenting its funders as pro-Israel, when in fact they include major contributions from a mysterious Hong Kong donor and George Soros, whose antipathy towards Israel is well documented. Rep. Schakowsky, by her staunch support of J Street since its inception - and she has been a main if not the main beneficiary of J Street fundraising efforts - likely unwittingly threatens to make Israel a partisan issue between the two political parties.
The answers to the question "Why is Israel important to the U.S?" highlighted the core difference between the candidates. Rep. Schakowsky listed Israel's important technological and medical achievements which benefit the U.S. On the other hand, Pollak underscored the deeper philosophical and cultural connection between the two nations. He noted that America and Israel represent the values of opportunity, liberty, and respect for the individual human being. Moreover he stated, "America and Israel were founded on the same idea that oppressed and persecuted people could build something new through nothing more than hard work and faith... A world that is not safe for Israel and the idea of Israel is not safe for the United States and the idea of the United States."
Joel Pollak, who brilliantly articulates his pro-Israel message whether his audience is in a synagogue, church or mosque, understands the importance of the U.S.-Israel relationship and is unafraid to declare a clear and compelling case for that relationship. Therefore, To Protect Our Heritage PAC, whose sole mission is strengthening the bonds between Israel and the U.S., endorses Joel Pollak. By serving as a leader on the issue, Joel Pollak will strengthen both nations.
NOTE: The endorsement is by To Protect Our Heritage PAC and not event co-sponsors, most of whom do not endorse or contribute to political candidates.
[L
TO PROTECT OUR HERITAGE PAC ENDORSES JOEL POLLAK FOR ILLINOIS 9TH DISTRICT CONGRESSIONAL SEAT.
joel
On Sunday, October 17th, To Protect Our Heritage (TPOH) PAC, along with thirty co-sponsoring organizations, held a Candidates' Forum, giving 900 guests the opportunity to listen to Representative Jan Schakowsky (D-9th) and her opponent Joel Pollak answer in-depth questions about their stances and proposed Congressional actions involving Israel, its neighbors and the U.S. relationship. To Protect Our Heritage, the Midwest's oldest and largest bi-partisan, pro-Israel PAC, recognizes and welcomes that both candidates define themselves as strongly pro-Israel.
The PAC has endorsed and contributed to Rep. Schakowsky in the past because of her excellent voting record on Israel-related issues. We appreciate Rep. Schakowsky's stance, stated at the Forum, that an undivided city of Jerusalem is and will remain the capital of the Jewish State of Israel and that our country should promptly move our embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. We also appreciate her statement that Mohammad Abbas should immediately recognize Israel as a Jewish state in return for a two-month continuation of Israel's moratorium on additional building of homes in the West Bank, as offered by Benjamin Netanyahu.
However, following the forum, the TPOH candidate selection committee conferred and chose to endorse Joel Pollak for the 9th District U.S. Congressional seat because his responses to the questions showed him to be an articulate and unwavering LEADER for the U.S.-Israel relationship. While we appreciate Rep. Schakowsky's history of affirmative votes on legislation introduced by others, we are convinced that Joel Pollak will be a stronger advocate for the critical relationship between our country and Israel. In seeking out ways to strengthen the ties and protect Israel, he will be helping both nations.
In response to the question "What two pieces of Israel-related legislation will you propose if you are in the House of Representatives next February?" Pollak advocated (1) ceasing U.S. funding of the U.N. Human Rights Council, whose leadership has included many of the world's most sadistic tyrants and whose primary function and accomplishment for years has been to condemn Israel - while ignoring real human rights violations throughout the rest of the world, and (2) making a clear statement to Iran that the U.S. considers Israel an ally like NATO allies and thus "a strike against Israel would be a strike against the U.S." Although Rep. Schakowsky mentioned reaffirming the U.S. commitment to Israel, she offered no specifics. We note that in her twelve years in Congress she has not authored any legislation on Israel.
Problematic are Rep. Schakowsky's strong ties with individuals and groups such as J Street, whose members came as a group to cheer her at the forum. J Street has labeled itself as pro-Israel; however, its underlying mission has been revealed to be the weakening of bi-partisan Congressional support for Israel by, among other tactics, drawing away Democratic support for that relationship. J Street leadership has come out not only against AIPAC (American Public Affairs Committee) on various congressional initiatives but has ridiculed and attacked some of Israel's strongest defenders, such as Elie Wiesel, Alan Dershowitz, and Joe Lieberman. Israel's Ambassador Michael Oren characterized J Street as "a unique problem in that it not only opposes one policy of one Israeli government, it opposes all policies of all Israeli governments...This is not a matter of settlements here [or] there. We understand there are differences of opinion, but when it comes to the survival of the Jewish state, there should be no differences of opinion." J Street has recently been exposed as deceiving the public by presenting its funders as pro-Israel, when in fact they include major contributions from a mysterious Hong Kong donor and George Soros, whose antipathy towards Israel is well documented. Rep. Schakowsky, by her staunch support of J Street since its inception - and she has been a main if not the main beneficiary of J Street fundraising efforts - likely unwittingly threatens to make Israel a partisan issue between the two political parties.
The answers to the question "Why is Israel important to the U.S?" highlighted the core difference between the candidates. Rep. Schakowsky listed Israel's important technological and medical achievements which benefit the U.S. On the other hand, Pollak underscored the deeper philosophical and cultural connection between the two nations. He noted that America and Israel represent the values of opportunity, liberty, and respect for the individual human being. Moreover he stated, "America and Israel were founded on the same idea that oppressed and persecuted people could build something new through nothing more than hard work and faith... A world that is not safe for Israel and the idea of Israel is not safe for the United States and the idea of the United States."
Joel Pollak, who brilliantly articulates his pro-Israel message whether his audience is in a synagogue, church or mosque, understands the importance of the U.S.-Israel relationship and is unafraid to declare a clear and compelling case for that relationship. Therefore, To Protect Our Heritage PAC, whose sole mission is strengthening the bonds between Israel and the U.S., endorses Joel Pollak. By serving as a leader on the issue, Joel Pollak will strengthen both nations.
NOTE: The endorsement is by To Protect Our Heritage PAC and not event co-sponsors, most of whom do not endorse or contribute to political candidates.
[L
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Dems becoming the anti-Israel party?
Congress: The pattern of weak Democratic support began just a week after Inauguration Day 2009, right after the Israel-Hamas war, when 60 House Democrats (including such left-wingers as Dennis Kucinich, Barbara Lee, and Maxine Waters) and not a single Republican wrote the secretary of state to "respectfully request that the State Department release emergency funds to [the anti-Israel organization] UNRWA for reconstruction and humanitarian assistance" in Gaza.
In the same spirit, 54 House Democrats and not a single Republican signed a letter to Barack Obama a year later, in January 2010, asking him to "advocate for immediate improvements for Gaza in the following areas" and then listed ten ways to help Hamas, the Palestinian terrorist organization.
In dramatic contrast, 78 House Republicans wrote a "Dear Prime Minister Netanyahu" letter a few months later to express their "steadfast support" for him and Israel. The signatories were not just Republicans but members of the House Republican Study Committee, a conservative caucus.
So, count 54 Democrats for Hamas and 78 Republicans for Israel.
In the aftermath of the March 2010 crisis when Joe Biden went to Jerusalem, 333 members of the House of Representatives signed a letter to the secretary of state reaffirming the U.S.-Israel alliance. The 102 members who did not sign included 94 Democrats (including Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi) and 8 Republicans, a 12-to-1 ratio. Seventy-six senators signed a similar letter; the 24 who did not sign included 20 Democrats and 4 Republicans, a 5-to-1 ratio.
Voters: Public opinion explains these differences on Capitol Hill.
An April 2009 poll by Zogby International asked about U.S. policy: Ten percent of Obama voters and 60 percent of voters for Republican John McCain wanted the president to support Israel. Get tough with Israel? Eighty percent of Obama voters said yes and 73 percent of McCain voters said no. Conversely, 67 percent of Obama voters said yes and 79 percent of McCain voters said no to Washington engaging with Hamas. And 61 percent of Obama voters endorsed a Palestinian "right of return," while only 21 percent of McCain voters concurred.
Almost a year later, the same pollster asked American adults how best to deal with the Arab-Israeli conflict and found "a strong divide" on this question. Seventy-three percent of Democrats wanted the president to end the historic bond with Israel but treat Arabs and Israelis alike; only 24 percent of Republicans endorsed this shift.
Gallup on "Sympathy for Israelis vs. Palestinians in Mideast Situation, by Party ID."
A survey this month asked if a likely voter is "more likely or less likely to vote for a candidate whom you perceive as pro-Israel." Thirty-nine percent of Democrats and 69 percent of Republicans prefer the pro-Israel candidate. Turned around, 33 percent of Democrats and 14 percent of Republicans would be less likely to support a candidate because he is pro-Israel. Democrats are somewhat evenly split on Israel but Republicans favor it by a 5-to-1 ratio.
A consensus exists that the two parties are growing further apart over time. Pro-Israel, conservative Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe finds that "the old political consensus that brought Republicans and Democrats together in support of the Middle East's only flourishing democracy is breaking down." Anti-Israel, left-wing James Zogby of the Arab American Institute agrees, writing that "traditional U.S. policy toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict does not have bipartisan backing." Thanks to changes in the Democratic party, Israel has become a partisan issue in American politics, an unwelcome development for it.
In late March 2010, during a nadir of U.S.-Israel relations, Janine Zacharia wrote in the Washington Post that some Israelis expect their prime minister to "search for ways to buy time until the midterm U.S. elections [of November 2010] in hopes that Obama would lose support and that more pro-Israel Republicans would be elected." That an Israeli leader is thought to stall for fewer Congressional Democrats confirms the changes outlined here. It also provides guidance for voters.
Mr. Pipes is director of the Middle East Forum and Taube distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University.
In the same spirit, 54 House Democrats and not a single Republican signed a letter to Barack Obama a year later, in January 2010, asking him to "advocate for immediate improvements for Gaza in the following areas" and then listed ten ways to help Hamas, the Palestinian terrorist organization.
In dramatic contrast, 78 House Republicans wrote a "Dear Prime Minister Netanyahu" letter a few months later to express their "steadfast support" for him and Israel. The signatories were not just Republicans but members of the House Republican Study Committee, a conservative caucus.
So, count 54 Democrats for Hamas and 78 Republicans for Israel.
In the aftermath of the March 2010 crisis when Joe Biden went to Jerusalem, 333 members of the House of Representatives signed a letter to the secretary of state reaffirming the U.S.-Israel alliance. The 102 members who did not sign included 94 Democrats (including Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi) and 8 Republicans, a 12-to-1 ratio. Seventy-six senators signed a similar letter; the 24 who did not sign included 20 Democrats and 4 Republicans, a 5-to-1 ratio.
Voters: Public opinion explains these differences on Capitol Hill.
An April 2009 poll by Zogby International asked about U.S. policy: Ten percent of Obama voters and 60 percent of voters for Republican John McCain wanted the president to support Israel. Get tough with Israel? Eighty percent of Obama voters said yes and 73 percent of McCain voters said no. Conversely, 67 percent of Obama voters said yes and 79 percent of McCain voters said no to Washington engaging with Hamas. And 61 percent of Obama voters endorsed a Palestinian "right of return," while only 21 percent of McCain voters concurred.
Almost a year later, the same pollster asked American adults how best to deal with the Arab-Israeli conflict and found "a strong divide" on this question. Seventy-three percent of Democrats wanted the president to end the historic bond with Israel but treat Arabs and Israelis alike; only 24 percent of Republicans endorsed this shift.
Gallup on "Sympathy for Israelis vs. Palestinians in Mideast Situation, by Party ID."
A survey this month asked if a likely voter is "more likely or less likely to vote for a candidate whom you perceive as pro-Israel." Thirty-nine percent of Democrats and 69 percent of Republicans prefer the pro-Israel candidate. Turned around, 33 percent of Democrats and 14 percent of Republicans would be less likely to support a candidate because he is pro-Israel. Democrats are somewhat evenly split on Israel but Republicans favor it by a 5-to-1 ratio.
A consensus exists that the two parties are growing further apart over time. Pro-Israel, conservative Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe finds that "the old political consensus that brought Republicans and Democrats together in support of the Middle East's only flourishing democracy is breaking down." Anti-Israel, left-wing James Zogby of the Arab American Institute agrees, writing that "traditional U.S. policy toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict does not have bipartisan backing." Thanks to changes in the Democratic party, Israel has become a partisan issue in American politics, an unwelcome development for it.
In late March 2010, during a nadir of U.S.-Israel relations, Janine Zacharia wrote in the Washington Post that some Israelis expect their prime minister to "search for ways to buy time until the midterm U.S. elections [of November 2010] in hopes that Obama would lose support and that more pro-Israel Republicans would be elected." That an Israeli leader is thought to stall for fewer Congressional Democrats confirms the changes outlined here. It also provides guidance for voters.
Mr. Pipes is director of the Middle East Forum and Taube distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University.
Shame on Jan Schakowski Illinois 9 Congresswoman
Jan Schakowsky: First You Lose, then you Misquote
Richard Baehr
Several hundred people turned out last night to hear Illinois 9th district Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky discuss Israel with her Republican challenger, Joel Pollak. By the end of the night a few things were clear:
1. Pollak is much brighter and more conversant with the issues, and able to speak about them without reading from prepared notes. It is embarrassing that a multi-term Congresswoman has to write out a script for a 5 minute opening and closing statement, or have one written for her.
2. Schakowsky did not want to talk about Helen Thomas, a nasty anti-Semite and Israel-hating journalist, whom Schakowsky chose to honor at a big campaign fundraising event this year. Joel Pollak had Alan Dershowitz at his fundraiser, a liberal Democrat and defender of Israel.
3. Schakowsky was warmly cheered by the dozens of J- Street members who attended the Forum last night. Though J-Street has bashed Israel over Gaza, facilitated meetings in Congress with Richard Goldstone, fought Congressional sanctions against Iran, and basically done everything possible to make life difficult for Israel, in the process damaging U.S.-Israel relations, Schakowsky and J-Street have had a two way love affair from the group's inception. She has received more money from their PAC than any other candidate for federal office this year. J-Street , and it s chief funder, Israel-hating George Soros, have tried to weaken AIPAC by picking off many on the left.
In essence, if you work with J-Street, your goal is to make support for Israel less bi-partisan. So why does Schakowsky stick with this noxious group? My guess is for two reasons: the first is that they have Barack Obama's back as he publicly chastises Israel over settlements. Other Presidents may have opposed settlement construction, but none have been as public on the subject, or as persistent about them as Obama. Obama has invited J-Street into his small group meetings with Jewish leadership. One flack for the Democrats, Steve Sheffey, has argued that Pollak has made Israel a partisan issue. That is pretty funny, coming as it does, as he applauds Schakowsky for her record on Israel, a record that includes assisting J-Street in its designs to weaken AIPAC.
4. Schakowsky kept repeating that she had a 100% voting record on Israel. But that record reflects setting the bar lower each election cycle on what it means to be pro-Israel. Voting for foreign aid is hardly at this point a test of pro-Israel credentials. Almost all Congressmen support it every year, except when one party or the other (most recently the Democrats) includes it in an omnibus bill they know is unacceptable to the other Party for the sole purpose of getting a no vote on the record for members of the minority party. That is cynicism writ large, but really just par for the course for the Democrats. When one member has done more than any other member of Congress to promote a group hostile to Israel, , and honors an anti-Semite and Israel hater, her so called perfect record on Israel is a joke.
5. The forum last night was to be on the sole topic of Israel. Pollak observed the rules. Schakowsky could not help herself, straying into her real agenda -- and the one she really cares about -- liberal domestic spending programs. Of course, Schakowsky introduced the subject with the magic words: Tikkun Olam )"repairing the world" in Hebrew -- in other words, "good works"). Tikkun Olam are the same buzz words used by the Jews who sponsor flotillas to break the Gaza embargo, and by the Rabbis who lead the fast for Gaza. Tikkun Olam does not man running up 3 trillion dollars in deficits in two years for spending program that accomplished almost nothing, and now become debts that we will leave for future generations. Anyone in attendance last night could tell that Schakowsky was far more engaged and passionate in her few minutes talking about her liberal spending agenda, than in all the rest of her pretty flat toned responses on Israel.
6. Since Pollak battered Schakowsky on substance, Jan's team was left to create a misquote, an attempt to take viral a statement never made by Joel Pollak in the Forum. Whether the misquote was created by Schakowsky herself , or by Steve Sheffey is unclear. This is from Sheffey's debate puff piece posted on Schakowsky's website after the debate:
"Pollak also said that "President Obama has made it okay to hate Israel" and he criticized Obama's speech in Cairo. In response, Jan pointed out that the opposite is true. Jan said that President Obama deserves praise for being the first President to tell the Arab world, on Arab soil, that the bond between the U.S. and Israel is "unbreakable."
In a Facebook response, Pollak provided the actual comment he made:
"Jan Schakowsky is circulating a desperate fundraising email--sent from her BlackBerry after last night's candidate forum on Israel--in which she tells her supporters that I said: "President Obama has made it ok to hate Israel."
What I said -- as video of the forum will confirm -- was the following:
"President Obama's policy has made it acceptable to hate Israel openly in polite society. Helen Thomas was fired for making hateful statements about Jews, but she had vilified Israel for years, and felt comfortable expressing her views in this political climate. The Obama policy has also encouraged the world to scapegoat Israel and Jews -- not just in the Middle East, but closer to home, where Manuel Zelaya of Honduras blamed Israel and Jews when he was ousted from power."
Schakowsky -- as usual -- doesn't want to tell her supporters what I was referring to, because she held a fundraiser with Helen Thomas earlier this year, and traveled to Honduras last November to support Zelaya's attempt to return to power.
The hard truth for Schakowsky supporters is that their candidate refuses to criticize anything that President Obama has done -- and is doing -- with regard to Israel.
By singling Israel out, President Obama encouraged those opposed to or skeptical of Israel's very existence to believe that the world would soon be united against it. That has encouraged those who, like Thomas, previously kept hateful opinions to themselves.
And by wedding herself so closely and uncritically to President Obama's policy, Schakowsky has lost the trust of the pro-Israel community, in our district and across the nation."
There are many reasons why voters in the 9th district are turning to the challenger. For anyone attending the forum last night, and for whom support for a strong U.S Israel relationship is paramount, the choice was pretty clear. Schakowsky is a firm backer of Barack Obama's policies on Israel, Joel Pollak believes those policies, have been ineffective, and worse, endangered and isolated Israel. Iran proceeds merrily along to becoming a nuclear power after two years of failed engagement, and delayed sanctions and for Jan Schakowsky, all is well.
Richard Baehr
Several hundred people turned out last night to hear Illinois 9th district Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky discuss Israel with her Republican challenger, Joel Pollak. By the end of the night a few things were clear:
1. Pollak is much brighter and more conversant with the issues, and able to speak about them without reading from prepared notes. It is embarrassing that a multi-term Congresswoman has to write out a script for a 5 minute opening and closing statement, or have one written for her.
2. Schakowsky did not want to talk about Helen Thomas, a nasty anti-Semite and Israel-hating journalist, whom Schakowsky chose to honor at a big campaign fundraising event this year. Joel Pollak had Alan Dershowitz at his fundraiser, a liberal Democrat and defender of Israel.
3. Schakowsky was warmly cheered by the dozens of J- Street members who attended the Forum last night. Though J-Street has bashed Israel over Gaza, facilitated meetings in Congress with Richard Goldstone, fought Congressional sanctions against Iran, and basically done everything possible to make life difficult for Israel, in the process damaging U.S.-Israel relations, Schakowsky and J-Street have had a two way love affair from the group's inception. She has received more money from their PAC than any other candidate for federal office this year. J-Street , and it s chief funder, Israel-hating George Soros, have tried to weaken AIPAC by picking off many on the left.
In essence, if you work with J-Street, your goal is to make support for Israel less bi-partisan. So why does Schakowsky stick with this noxious group? My guess is for two reasons: the first is that they have Barack Obama's back as he publicly chastises Israel over settlements. Other Presidents may have opposed settlement construction, but none have been as public on the subject, or as persistent about them as Obama. Obama has invited J-Street into his small group meetings with Jewish leadership. One flack for the Democrats, Steve Sheffey, has argued that Pollak has made Israel a partisan issue. That is pretty funny, coming as it does, as he applauds Schakowsky for her record on Israel, a record that includes assisting J-Street in its designs to weaken AIPAC.
4. Schakowsky kept repeating that she had a 100% voting record on Israel. But that record reflects setting the bar lower each election cycle on what it means to be pro-Israel. Voting for foreign aid is hardly at this point a test of pro-Israel credentials. Almost all Congressmen support it every year, except when one party or the other (most recently the Democrats) includes it in an omnibus bill they know is unacceptable to the other Party for the sole purpose of getting a no vote on the record for members of the minority party. That is cynicism writ large, but really just par for the course for the Democrats. When one member has done more than any other member of Congress to promote a group hostile to Israel, , and honors an anti-Semite and Israel hater, her so called perfect record on Israel is a joke.
5. The forum last night was to be on the sole topic of Israel. Pollak observed the rules. Schakowsky could not help herself, straying into her real agenda -- and the one she really cares about -- liberal domestic spending programs. Of course, Schakowsky introduced the subject with the magic words: Tikkun Olam )"repairing the world" in Hebrew -- in other words, "good works"). Tikkun Olam are the same buzz words used by the Jews who sponsor flotillas to break the Gaza embargo, and by the Rabbis who lead the fast for Gaza. Tikkun Olam does not man running up 3 trillion dollars in deficits in two years for spending program that accomplished almost nothing, and now become debts that we will leave for future generations. Anyone in attendance last night could tell that Schakowsky was far more engaged and passionate in her few minutes talking about her liberal spending agenda, than in all the rest of her pretty flat toned responses on Israel.
6. Since Pollak battered Schakowsky on substance, Jan's team was left to create a misquote, an attempt to take viral a statement never made by Joel Pollak in the Forum. Whether the misquote was created by Schakowsky herself , or by Steve Sheffey is unclear. This is from Sheffey's debate puff piece posted on Schakowsky's website after the debate:
"Pollak also said that "President Obama has made it okay to hate Israel" and he criticized Obama's speech in Cairo. In response, Jan pointed out that the opposite is true. Jan said that President Obama deserves praise for being the first President to tell the Arab world, on Arab soil, that the bond between the U.S. and Israel is "unbreakable."
In a Facebook response, Pollak provided the actual comment he made:
"Jan Schakowsky is circulating a desperate fundraising email--sent from her BlackBerry after last night's candidate forum on Israel--in which she tells her supporters that I said: "President Obama has made it ok to hate Israel."
What I said -- as video of the forum will confirm -- was the following:
"President Obama's policy has made it acceptable to hate Israel openly in polite society. Helen Thomas was fired for making hateful statements about Jews, but she had vilified Israel for years, and felt comfortable expressing her views in this political climate. The Obama policy has also encouraged the world to scapegoat Israel and Jews -- not just in the Middle East, but closer to home, where Manuel Zelaya of Honduras blamed Israel and Jews when he was ousted from power."
Schakowsky -- as usual -- doesn't want to tell her supporters what I was referring to, because she held a fundraiser with Helen Thomas earlier this year, and traveled to Honduras last November to support Zelaya's attempt to return to power.
The hard truth for Schakowsky supporters is that their candidate refuses to criticize anything that President Obama has done -- and is doing -- with regard to Israel.
By singling Israel out, President Obama encouraged those opposed to or skeptical of Israel's very existence to believe that the world would soon be united against it. That has encouraged those who, like Thomas, previously kept hateful opinions to themselves.
And by wedding herself so closely and uncritically to President Obama's policy, Schakowsky has lost the trust of the pro-Israel community, in our district and across the nation."
There are many reasons why voters in the 9th district are turning to the challenger. For anyone attending the forum last night, and for whom support for a strong U.S Israel relationship is paramount, the choice was pretty clear. Schakowsky is a firm backer of Barack Obama's policies on Israel, Joel Pollak believes those policies, have been ineffective, and worse, endangered and isolated Israel. Iran proceeds merrily along to becoming a nuclear power after two years of failed engagement, and delayed sanctions and for Jan Schakowsky, all is well.
Lies vs Mark Kirk untrue Senate illinois
Dear Friend:
You may have read an article in this morning’s Chicago Sun-Times containing another desperate attempt by an Alexi Giannoulias surrogate, Howard Berman, to smear Mark Kirk’s record – since Alexi has none of his own to tout. I hope you will urge your friends and family to contribute to our campaign to help us fight these dirty campaign smears.
As someone who follows Congressman Kirk’s work closely – especially on the issue of Iran – you already know the truth.
This morning, the Jewish Telegraph Agency debunked the story:
Kirk gets this one, I think, on points -- as the Sun Times notes, Berman thanked Andrews for his work, a hint that the bill he and Kirk shaped played a role in the final bill. So did AIPAC when the bill passed. And, the sanctions are pretty much identical.
Yesterday, House Foreign Affairs Committee Ranking Member Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (the lead GOP sponsor of the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act) issued the following statement:
“Mark Kirk has been a leader in the bi-partisan effort to impose sanctions against the Iranian regime for years. Mark introduced legislation in 2007 and 2009 to place targeted sanctions against entities helping to develop Iran’s petroleum resources. Those bills provided some of the early impetus for targeted gasoline sanctions against Iran, which are a central component of the Iran sanctions bill which Congress passed this summer with strong support from Mark, who was an original co-sponsor of the legislation. Any allegation that Mark hasn’t played a key role in the implementation of gasoline sanctions against the Iranian regime is inaccurate and misrepresents the reality of Mark’s work.”
Here’s a timeline of events:
June 14, 2005: Reps. Kirk and Andrews introduce first resolution calling for a restriction of gasoline to Iran (H.Con.Res.177)
June 8, 2006: Reps. Kirk and Andrews introduce a second resolution calling for a restriction of gasoline to Iran (H.Con.Res.425)
June 27, 2007: Reps. Kirk and Andrews introduce the Iran Sanctions Enhancement Act, to amend the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996 to enhance United States diplomatic efforts with respect to Iran by expanding economic sanctions against Iran to include the importation of refined petroleum. (H.R. 2880)
March 25, 2009: The Wall Street Journal references the Kirk-Andrews legislation.
April 21, 2009: Reps. Kirk and Sherman introduce the Iran Diplomatic Enhancement Act, to amend the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996 to enhance United States diplomatic efforts with respect to Iran by expanding economic sanctions against Iran to include refined petroleum, and for other purposes. (H.R. 1985)
April 30, 2009: Reps. Berman, Ros-Lehtinen, Kirk, Andrews, Sherman, Burton, Ackerman and Royce introduce the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act, to amend the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996 to enhance United States diplomatic efforts with respect to Iran by expanding economic sanctions against Iran. (H.R. 2194)
December 15, 2009: Speaking on the House floor, Rep. Berman credits the Kirk-Andrews legislation as the first gasoline sanctions bill and says he worked closely with Kirk’s Democratic partner, Rep. Andrews. (Congressional Record)
And the official statement by Kirk Spokesperson Richard Goldberg:
"Congressman Berman apparently wants to disavow his own statements crediting the Kirk-Andrews gasoline sanctions bill as the predecessor to the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act in order to score cheap political points two weeks before an election.
"Chairman Berman's new assertions are contradicted by his previous words and the documented record, which clearly show Congressmen Kirk and Andrews introduced the first gasoline sanctions legislation in 2007. It is now clear that Alexi Giannoulias and his surrogates are so desperate they will say and do anything to get elected."
You may have read an article in this morning’s Chicago Sun-Times containing another desperate attempt by an Alexi Giannoulias surrogate, Howard Berman, to smear Mark Kirk’s record – since Alexi has none of his own to tout. I hope you will urge your friends and family to contribute to our campaign to help us fight these dirty campaign smears.
As someone who follows Congressman Kirk’s work closely – especially on the issue of Iran – you already know the truth.
This morning, the Jewish Telegraph Agency debunked the story:
Kirk gets this one, I think, on points -- as the Sun Times notes, Berman thanked Andrews for his work, a hint that the bill he and Kirk shaped played a role in the final bill. So did AIPAC when the bill passed. And, the sanctions are pretty much identical.
Yesterday, House Foreign Affairs Committee Ranking Member Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (the lead GOP sponsor of the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act) issued the following statement:
“Mark Kirk has been a leader in the bi-partisan effort to impose sanctions against the Iranian regime for years. Mark introduced legislation in 2007 and 2009 to place targeted sanctions against entities helping to develop Iran’s petroleum resources. Those bills provided some of the early impetus for targeted gasoline sanctions against Iran, which are a central component of the Iran sanctions bill which Congress passed this summer with strong support from Mark, who was an original co-sponsor of the legislation. Any allegation that Mark hasn’t played a key role in the implementation of gasoline sanctions against the Iranian regime is inaccurate and misrepresents the reality of Mark’s work.”
Here’s a timeline of events:
June 14, 2005: Reps. Kirk and Andrews introduce first resolution calling for a restriction of gasoline to Iran (H.Con.Res.177)
June 8, 2006: Reps. Kirk and Andrews introduce a second resolution calling for a restriction of gasoline to Iran (H.Con.Res.425)
June 27, 2007: Reps. Kirk and Andrews introduce the Iran Sanctions Enhancement Act, to amend the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996 to enhance United States diplomatic efforts with respect to Iran by expanding economic sanctions against Iran to include the importation of refined petroleum. (H.R. 2880)
March 25, 2009: The Wall Street Journal references the Kirk-Andrews legislation.
April 21, 2009: Reps. Kirk and Sherman introduce the Iran Diplomatic Enhancement Act, to amend the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996 to enhance United States diplomatic efforts with respect to Iran by expanding economic sanctions against Iran to include refined petroleum, and for other purposes. (H.R. 1985)
April 30, 2009: Reps. Berman, Ros-Lehtinen, Kirk, Andrews, Sherman, Burton, Ackerman and Royce introduce the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act, to amend the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996 to enhance United States diplomatic efforts with respect to Iran by expanding economic sanctions against Iran. (H.R. 2194)
December 15, 2009: Speaking on the House floor, Rep. Berman credits the Kirk-Andrews legislation as the first gasoline sanctions bill and says he worked closely with Kirk’s Democratic partner, Rep. Andrews. (Congressional Record)
And the official statement by Kirk Spokesperson Richard Goldberg:
"Congressman Berman apparently wants to disavow his own statements crediting the Kirk-Andrews gasoline sanctions bill as the predecessor to the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act in order to score cheap political points two weeks before an election.
"Chairman Berman's new assertions are contradicted by his previous words and the documented record, which clearly show Congressmen Kirk and Andrews introduced the first gasoline sanctions legislation in 2007. It is now clear that Alexi Giannoulias and his surrogates are so desperate they will say and do anything to get elected."
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Jews support Obama dropping
ws National News International News Israel News Briefs Short Takes Headline News
Login New Account New Password
MY JWEEK
'Gloom' Factor Sinks Obama's Standing With Jewish Voters
10
Share
Sinking poll numbers based more on the economy than Israel
New AJC poll says it's the economy, not Israel, driving down Democratic numbers.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
James D. Besser
Washington Correspondent
President Barack Obama's approval rating among Jewish voters has fallen six points in just seven months, and a surprisingly strong 33 percent of those surveyed say the nation would be better off with a Republican-led Congress, according to a just-released poll of Jewish voters by the American Jewish Committee.
That suggests one of the strongest pillars of the Democratic base is weakening just weeks before critical congressional midterm elections that are expected to result in strong GOP gains.
"A 51 percent positive rating for a Democratic president among Jews is, frankly, terrible," said University of Virginia political scientist Larry Sabato. "That is barely higher than Obama's national approval rating of 42 to 48 percent, depending on the poll.
"This is Obama's low point so far, no question," Sabato continued. "It is coming at just the wrong moment, given the Nov. 2 midterm elections."
The Jewish figures on the congressional election, too, tell a broader story, Sabato said.
"If 33 percent of Jewish voters say they prefer a GOP Congress, that tells me that the argument for 'checks and balances' has taken hold broadly, and that we are likely headed for divided government in some form," he said.
While Obama's performance on Israel-related issues was one factor in his drop, the biggest decline came on the question of his handling of the economy, mirroring national concerns that have boosted Republican candidates and triggered the Tea Party surge.
In fact, only 45 percent of Jewish respondents now say they approve of his handling of the economy - a 10-point drop from an AJC survey in March.
The AJC's executive director, David Harris, who has been overseeing the annual - and sometimes twice a year - surveys since they began in 1990, confessed to being surprised by many findings.
"What they show, more than anything else, is that the apprehension index is rising among American Jews," he said. "The gloom that has descended on the American public in general is also now revealed among American Jews. We didn't do well in Iraq and are doing worse in Afghanistan, we've lost Turkey as an ally, our current strategy is not likely to convince Iran to change its course, on health care and the economy there are growing concerns - the anxiety pops out on almost every question."
In other findings, Jewish Democratic affiliation fell below 50 percent for the first time since the AJC surveys began, standing at 48 percent. But the Republicans seemed to gain little, increasing to 17 percent - from 15 percent earlier in the year and 16 percent in 2009.
Login New Account New Password
MY JWEEK
'Gloom' Factor Sinks Obama's Standing With Jewish Voters
10
Share
Sinking poll numbers based more on the economy than Israel
New AJC poll says it's the economy, not Israel, driving down Democratic numbers.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
James D. Besser
Washington Correspondent
President Barack Obama's approval rating among Jewish voters has fallen six points in just seven months, and a surprisingly strong 33 percent of those surveyed say the nation would be better off with a Republican-led Congress, according to a just-released poll of Jewish voters by the American Jewish Committee.
That suggests one of the strongest pillars of the Democratic base is weakening just weeks before critical congressional midterm elections that are expected to result in strong GOP gains.
"A 51 percent positive rating for a Democratic president among Jews is, frankly, terrible," said University of Virginia political scientist Larry Sabato. "That is barely higher than Obama's national approval rating of 42 to 48 percent, depending on the poll.
"This is Obama's low point so far, no question," Sabato continued. "It is coming at just the wrong moment, given the Nov. 2 midterm elections."
The Jewish figures on the congressional election, too, tell a broader story, Sabato said.
"If 33 percent of Jewish voters say they prefer a GOP Congress, that tells me that the argument for 'checks and balances' has taken hold broadly, and that we are likely headed for divided government in some form," he said.
While Obama's performance on Israel-related issues was one factor in his drop, the biggest decline came on the question of his handling of the economy, mirroring national concerns that have boosted Republican candidates and triggered the Tea Party surge.
In fact, only 45 percent of Jewish respondents now say they approve of his handling of the economy - a 10-point drop from an AJC survey in March.
The AJC's executive director, David Harris, who has been overseeing the annual - and sometimes twice a year - surveys since they began in 1990, confessed to being surprised by many findings.
"What they show, more than anything else, is that the apprehension index is rising among American Jews," he said. "The gloom that has descended on the American public in general is also now revealed among American Jews. We didn't do well in Iraq and are doing worse in Afghanistan, we've lost Turkey as an ally, our current strategy is not likely to convince Iran to change its course, on health care and the economy there are growing concerns - the anxiety pops out on almost every question."
In other findings, Jewish Democratic affiliation fell below 50 percent for the first time since the AJC surveys began, standing at 48 percent. But the Republicans seemed to gain little, increasing to 17 percent - from 15 percent earlier in the year and 16 percent in 2009.
Friday, October 8, 2010
Britain understands what is needed
Jewish World Review Oct. 8, 2010 / 30 Tishrei, 5771
The British Try To Climb Out of the Ditch
By Mona Charen
Printer Friendly Version
Email this article
Share and bookmark this article
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | Three and a half weeks from now, Americans will decide whether to pull the emergency brake on a train that is headed to bankruptcy. Across the pond in Great Britain, which got aboard that train following World War II, the sparks are flying as the Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition government attempts a very tardy, and accordingly much more painful, reversal.
The nation that built the most far-flung empire in the history of the world — not primarily through conquest but through trade and colonization — is now convulsed by protests as the coalition government imposes austerity. "Tory scum!" shouted protesters outside the Conservative Party congress in Birmingham last week. Half a dozen nearly naked, portly, middle-aged pensioners unfurled a banner (held strategically at waist level) proclaiming "Stripped Of Our Pensions." They were part of a massive rally (7,000 strong) of teachers, health care workers, and other public-sector employees who swore to "fight back" against the cuts proposed by the Cameron/Clegg government. Even the queen has been told to accept reductions to her generous yearly stipend — though her response has thus far been more temperate.
When a society has become as socialized as Great Britain, it becomes difficult to say where the public sector leaves off and the private sector begins. Take the arts. We squabble about public funding for the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities. And certainly, there is a good libertarian case to be made that these are not the proper province of government at all, and certainly not of the federal government. But in any case, government subventions amount to only about 10 percent of total arts funding in the U.S.
In the UK, on the other hand, government contributes 50 percent. So when the Cameron/Clegg government announced that it may cut subsidies to the arts by as much as 25 percent, the howls were piercing. Alistair Spalding, artistic director of the Sadler's Wells dance theater in London, sorrowfully complained to the Washington Post that if forced to seek private donations, he might not be able to stage such groundbreaking work as last year's interpretative dance "in which the pope sexually abuses an altar boy..."
Socialists dislike programs for the poor. They prefer that everyone receive welfare because they calculate, so far correctly, that it's much harder for governments to cut subsidies to everyone than to the poor. That's why, in the U.S., liberals go rigid at the idea of cutting Social Security benefits to the affluent. In Britain, Labour is incensed at the proposal by the coalition government to reduce the annual child subsidy that all Britons, regardless of income, receive. "No more open-ended chequebook," Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne explained. "No family should get more from living on benefits than the average family gets from going out to work."
This is the "same old Tories," a Labour leader complained, "hitting hardest at those who can least afford it." What? The government is proposing to cut benefits principally for the better off. Cuts to programs for the poor will be slight.
The British government, deeply in debt, is scrambling to avoid the fate of Greece, whose unsustainable obligations brought it to the brink of default until it was rescued by the European Union. Though full details of the budget will not be published until Oct. 20, leaks in the British press have suggested that the VAT tax will increase from 17.5 to 20 percent, that banks will be assessed added taxes, and that military spending will be reduced by 10 to 20 percent. Though Prime Minister David Cameron sought to quiet fears that drastic cuts in the military budget would compromise Britain's commitment to Afghanistan, he was less than convincing.
Though the coalition government has shied from suggesting cuts to the Great White Elephant, the National Health Service, it has proposed to restructure the program. Britain spends more on the NHS than on any other line item — more than on pensions, social security, education, defense, transport, public safety, or interest on the debt. Under the previous Labour government, spending on the NHS tripled in just 12 years. It's the great black hole in the center of Britain's debt vortex. And yet the quality of care and efficiency of delivery are dismal compared with other European countries, and far inferior to the United States.
Or at least to the pre-Obamacare United States. The pain Britain is enduring should be instructive. They are trying to climb out of a ditch. If we grab that emergency brake now, we may avoid falling in.
The British Try To Climb Out of the Ditch
By Mona Charen
Printer Friendly Version
Email this article
Share and bookmark this article
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | Three and a half weeks from now, Americans will decide whether to pull the emergency brake on a train that is headed to bankruptcy. Across the pond in Great Britain, which got aboard that train following World War II, the sparks are flying as the Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition government attempts a very tardy, and accordingly much more painful, reversal.
The nation that built the most far-flung empire in the history of the world — not primarily through conquest but through trade and colonization — is now convulsed by protests as the coalition government imposes austerity. "Tory scum!" shouted protesters outside the Conservative Party congress in Birmingham last week. Half a dozen nearly naked, portly, middle-aged pensioners unfurled a banner (held strategically at waist level) proclaiming "Stripped Of Our Pensions." They were part of a massive rally (7,000 strong) of teachers, health care workers, and other public-sector employees who swore to "fight back" against the cuts proposed by the Cameron/Clegg government. Even the queen has been told to accept reductions to her generous yearly stipend — though her response has thus far been more temperate.
When a society has become as socialized as Great Britain, it becomes difficult to say where the public sector leaves off and the private sector begins. Take the arts. We squabble about public funding for the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities. And certainly, there is a good libertarian case to be made that these are not the proper province of government at all, and certainly not of the federal government. But in any case, government subventions amount to only about 10 percent of total arts funding in the U.S.
In the UK, on the other hand, government contributes 50 percent. So when the Cameron/Clegg government announced that it may cut subsidies to the arts by as much as 25 percent, the howls were piercing. Alistair Spalding, artistic director of the Sadler's Wells dance theater in London, sorrowfully complained to the Washington Post that if forced to seek private donations, he might not be able to stage such groundbreaking work as last year's interpretative dance "in which the pope sexually abuses an altar boy..."
Socialists dislike programs for the poor. They prefer that everyone receive welfare because they calculate, so far correctly, that it's much harder for governments to cut subsidies to everyone than to the poor. That's why, in the U.S., liberals go rigid at the idea of cutting Social Security benefits to the affluent. In Britain, Labour is incensed at the proposal by the coalition government to reduce the annual child subsidy that all Britons, regardless of income, receive. "No more open-ended chequebook," Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne explained. "No family should get more from living on benefits than the average family gets from going out to work."
This is the "same old Tories," a Labour leader complained, "hitting hardest at those who can least afford it." What? The government is proposing to cut benefits principally for the better off. Cuts to programs for the poor will be slight.
The British government, deeply in debt, is scrambling to avoid the fate of Greece, whose unsustainable obligations brought it to the brink of default until it was rescued by the European Union. Though full details of the budget will not be published until Oct. 20, leaks in the British press have suggested that the VAT tax will increase from 17.5 to 20 percent, that banks will be assessed added taxes, and that military spending will be reduced by 10 to 20 percent. Though Prime Minister David Cameron sought to quiet fears that drastic cuts in the military budget would compromise Britain's commitment to Afghanistan, he was less than convincing.
Though the coalition government has shied from suggesting cuts to the Great White Elephant, the National Health Service, it has proposed to restructure the program. Britain spends more on the NHS than on any other line item — more than on pensions, social security, education, defense, transport, public safety, or interest on the debt. Under the previous Labour government, spending on the NHS tripled in just 12 years. It's the great black hole in the center of Britain's debt vortex. And yet the quality of care and efficiency of delivery are dismal compared with other European countries, and far inferior to the United States.
Or at least to the pre-Obamacare United States. The pain Britain is enduring should be instructive. They are trying to climb out of a ditch. If we grab that emergency brake now, we may avoid falling in.
What Obama has wrought
ewish World Review Oct. 8, 2010 / 30 Tishrei, 5771
The Colbert Democrats
By Charles Krauthammer
Printer Friendly Version
Email this article
Share and bookmark this article
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | A president's first midterm election is inevitably a referendum on his two years in office. The bad news for Democrats is that President Obama's "reelect" number is 38 percent -- precisely Bill Clinton's in October 1994, the eve of the wave election that gave Republicans control of the House for the first time in 40 years.
Yet this same poll found that 65 percent view Obama favorably "as a person." The current Democratic crisis is not about the man -- his alleged lack of empathy, ability to emote, etc., requiring remediation with backyard, shirt-sleeved shoulder rubbing with the folks -- but about the policies.
(For more opinions on the midterm elections, check out David S. Broder's "John Boehner's useful thoughts on fixing Congress," E.J. Dionne Jr.'s "Virginia's 5th District race may say a lot about the electoral landscape" and Katrina vanden Heuvel's "Ignore the pollsters and champion the progressives.")
And the problem with the policies is twofold: ideology and effectiveness. First, Obama, abetted by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, tried to take a center-right country to the left. They grossly misread the 2008 election. It was a mandate to fix the economy and restore American confidence. Obama read it as a mandate to change the American social contract, giving it a more European social-democratic stamp, by fundamentally extending the reach and power of government in health care, energy, education, finance and industrial policy.
Obama succeeded with health care. Unfortunately for the Democrats, that and Obama's other signature achievement -- the stimulus -- were not exactly what the folks were clamoring for. What they wanted was economic recovery.
Here the Democrats failed the simple test of effectiveness. The economy is extraordinarily weak, unemployment is unacceptably high, and the only sure consequence of the stimulus is nearly $1 trillion added to the national debt in a single stroke.
And yet, to these albatrosses of ideological overreach and economic ineffectiveness, the Democrats have managed in the past few weeks to add a third indictment: incompetence.
For the first time since modern budgeting was introduced with the Budget Act of 1974, the House failed to even write a budget. This in a year of extraordinary deficits, rising uncertainty and jittery financial markets. Gold is going through the roof. Confidence in the dollar and the American economy is falling -- largely because of massive overhanging debt. Yet no budget emerged from Congress to give guidance, let alone reassurance, about future U.S. revenues and spending.
That's not all. Congress has not passed a single appropriations bill. To keep the government going, Congress passed a so-called continuing resolution (CR) before adjourning to campaign. The problem with continuing to spend at the current level is that the last two years have seen a huge 28 percent jump in non-defense discretionary spending. The CR continues this profligacy, aggravating an already serious debt problem.
As if this were not enough, Congress adjourned without even a vote -- nay, without even a Democratic bill -- on the expiring Bush tax cuts. This is the ultimate in incompetence. After 20 months of control of the White House and Congress -- during which they passed an elaborate, 1,000-page micromanagement of every detail of American health care -- the Democrats adjourned without being able to tell the country what its tax rates will be on Jan. 1.
It's not just income taxes. It's capital gains and dividends, too. And the estate tax, which will careen insanely from 0 to 55 percent when the ball drops on Times Square on New Year's Eve.
Nor is this harmless incompetence. To do this at a time when $2 trillion of capital is sitting on the sidelines because of rising uncertainty -- and there is no greater uncertainty than next year's tax rates -- is staggeringly irresponsible.
As if this display of unseriousness -- no budget, no appropriations bills, no tax bill -- were not enough, some genius on a House Judiciary subcommittee invites parodist Stephen Colbert to testify as an expert witness on immigration. He then pulls off a nervy mockery of the whole proceedings -- my favorite was his request to have his colonoscopy inserted in the Congressional Record -- while the chairwoman sits there clueless.
A fitting end for the 111th Congress. But not quite. Colbert will return to the scene of the crime on Oct. 30 as the leader of one of two mock rallies on the Mall. Comedian Jon Stewart leads the other. At a time of near-10 percent unemployment, a difficult and draining war abroad, and widespread disgust with government overreach and incompetence, they will light up the TV screens as the hip face of the new liberalism -- just three days before the election.
I suspect the electorate will declare itself not amused.
The Colbert Democrats
By Charles Krauthammer
Printer Friendly Version
Email this article
Share and bookmark this article
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | A president's first midterm election is inevitably a referendum on his two years in office. The bad news for Democrats is that President Obama's "reelect" number is 38 percent -- precisely Bill Clinton's in October 1994, the eve of the wave election that gave Republicans control of the House for the first time in 40 years.
Yet this same poll found that 65 percent view Obama favorably "as a person." The current Democratic crisis is not about the man -- his alleged lack of empathy, ability to emote, etc., requiring remediation with backyard, shirt-sleeved shoulder rubbing with the folks -- but about the policies.
(For more opinions on the midterm elections, check out David S. Broder's "John Boehner's useful thoughts on fixing Congress," E.J. Dionne Jr.'s "Virginia's 5th District race may say a lot about the electoral landscape" and Katrina vanden Heuvel's "Ignore the pollsters and champion the progressives.")
And the problem with the policies is twofold: ideology and effectiveness. First, Obama, abetted by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, tried to take a center-right country to the left. They grossly misread the 2008 election. It was a mandate to fix the economy and restore American confidence. Obama read it as a mandate to change the American social contract, giving it a more European social-democratic stamp, by fundamentally extending the reach and power of government in health care, energy, education, finance and industrial policy.
Obama succeeded with health care. Unfortunately for the Democrats, that and Obama's other signature achievement -- the stimulus -- were not exactly what the folks were clamoring for. What they wanted was economic recovery.
Here the Democrats failed the simple test of effectiveness. The economy is extraordinarily weak, unemployment is unacceptably high, and the only sure consequence of the stimulus is nearly $1 trillion added to the national debt in a single stroke.
And yet, to these albatrosses of ideological overreach and economic ineffectiveness, the Democrats have managed in the past few weeks to add a third indictment: incompetence.
For the first time since modern budgeting was introduced with the Budget Act of 1974, the House failed to even write a budget. This in a year of extraordinary deficits, rising uncertainty and jittery financial markets. Gold is going through the roof. Confidence in the dollar and the American economy is falling -- largely because of massive overhanging debt. Yet no budget emerged from Congress to give guidance, let alone reassurance, about future U.S. revenues and spending.
That's not all. Congress has not passed a single appropriations bill. To keep the government going, Congress passed a so-called continuing resolution (CR) before adjourning to campaign. The problem with continuing to spend at the current level is that the last two years have seen a huge 28 percent jump in non-defense discretionary spending. The CR continues this profligacy, aggravating an already serious debt problem.
As if this were not enough, Congress adjourned without even a vote -- nay, without even a Democratic bill -- on the expiring Bush tax cuts. This is the ultimate in incompetence. After 20 months of control of the White House and Congress -- during which they passed an elaborate, 1,000-page micromanagement of every detail of American health care -- the Democrats adjourned without being able to tell the country what its tax rates will be on Jan. 1.
It's not just income taxes. It's capital gains and dividends, too. And the estate tax, which will careen insanely from 0 to 55 percent when the ball drops on Times Square on New Year's Eve.
Nor is this harmless incompetence. To do this at a time when $2 trillion of capital is sitting on the sidelines because of rising uncertainty -- and there is no greater uncertainty than next year's tax rates -- is staggeringly irresponsible.
As if this display of unseriousness -- no budget, no appropriations bills, no tax bill -- were not enough, some genius on a House Judiciary subcommittee invites parodist Stephen Colbert to testify as an expert witness on immigration. He then pulls off a nervy mockery of the whole proceedings -- my favorite was his request to have his colonoscopy inserted in the Congressional Record -- while the chairwoman sits there clueless.
A fitting end for the 111th Congress. But not quite. Colbert will return to the scene of the crime on Oct. 30 as the leader of one of two mock rallies on the Mall. Comedian Jon Stewart leads the other. At a time of near-10 percent unemployment, a difficult and draining war abroad, and widespread disgust with government overreach and incompetence, they will light up the TV screens as the hip face of the new liberalism -- just three days before the election.
I suspect the electorate will declare itself not amused.
Monday, October 4, 2010
Chicago Jewish vote for Emanuel not certain
Rahm Emanuel's stance toward Israel may cost him Jewish votes as he prepares a run for Chicago mayor, the Chicago Tribune reports.
Emanuel, who announced that he is preparing a run for mayor on Sunday after leaving his post as White House chief of staff on Friday, has been viewed in some Jewish quarters as hostile toward Israel.
In particular, Emanuel has been linked to President Obama's early chilly treatment of Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and the arm-twisting that led to Israel's agreement to a 10-month building freeze in the West Bank.
More recently, Orthodox Jewish sources interviewed for the Tribune story said they weren't pleased with Emanuel's announcement for mayor coming on Friday, which coincided with Simchat Torah.
However, the Tribune also notes that the same qualities that make Emanuel unpopular among religious Jews may score him points among "Lakefront liberals."
Emanuel, who announced that he is preparing a run for mayor on Sunday after leaving his post as White House chief of staff on Friday, has been viewed in some Jewish quarters as hostile toward Israel.
In particular, Emanuel has been linked to President Obama's early chilly treatment of Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and the arm-twisting that led to Israel's agreement to a 10-month building freeze in the West Bank.
More recently, Orthodox Jewish sources interviewed for the Tribune story said they weren't pleased with Emanuel's announcement for mayor coming on Friday, which coincided with Simchat Torah.
However, the Tribune also notes that the same qualities that make Emanuel unpopular among religious Jews may score him points among "Lakefront liberals."
Why go right?
Robert A. Hall is the actor who plays the
coroner on CSI if you watch that show.
“I'm 63 and I’m Tired"
by Robert A. Hall
cid:9FF94D62A1924BF7A27AAAE81003EC3C@user639bdd8637
I'm 63. Except for one semester in college when jobs
were scarce and a six-month period when I was between jobs, but
job-hunting every day, I've worked, hard, since I was 18. Despite some
health challenges, I still put in 50-hour weeks, and haven't called in
sick in seven or eight years. I make a good salary, but I didn't
inherit my job or my income, and I worked to get where I am. Given the
economy, there's no retirement in sight, and I'm tired. Very tired.
I'm tired of being told that I have to "spread the
wealth" to people who don't have my work ethic. I'm tired of being
told the government will take the money I earned, by force if
necessary, and give it to people too lazy to earn it.
I'm tired of being told that I have to pay more taxes
to "keep people in their homes." Sure, if they lost their jobs or got
sick, I'm willing to help. But if they bought McMansions at three
times the price of our paid-off, $250,000 condo, on one-third of my
salary, then let the left-wing Congress-critters who passed Fannie and
Freddie and the Community Reinvestment Act that created the bubble
help them with their own money.
I'm tired of being told how bad America is by
left-wing millionaires like Michael Moore, George Soros and Hollywood
Entertainers who live in luxury because of the opportunities America
offers. In thirty years, if they get their way, the United States will
have the economy of Zimbabwe, the freedom of the press of China, the
crime and violence of Mexico, the tolerance for Christian people of
Iran, and the freedom of speech of Venezuela.
I'm tired of being told that Islam is a "Religion of
Peace," when every day I can read dozens of stories of Muslim men
killing their sisters, wives and daughters for their family "honor";
of Muslims rioting over some slight offense; of Muslims murdering
Christian and Jews because they aren't "believers"; of Muslims burning
schools for girls; of Muslims stoning teenage rape victims to death
for "adultery"; of Muslims mutilating the genitals of little girls;
all in the name of Allah, because the Qur'an and Shari'a law tells
them to.
I'm tired of being told that "race doesn't matter" in
the post-racial world of Obama, when it's all that matters in
affirmative action jobs, lower college admission and graduation
standards for minorities (harming them the most), government contract
set-asides, tolerance for the ghetto culture of violence and
fatherless children that hurts minorities more than anyone, and in the
appointment of U.S. Senators from Illinois.
I'm tired of being told that out of "tolerance for
other cultures" we must let Saudi Arabia use our oil money to fund
mosques and mandrassa Islamic schools to preach hate in America, while
no American group is allowed to fund a church, synagogue or religious
school in Saudi Arabia to teach love and tolerance.
I'm tired of being told I must lower my living
standard to fight global warming, which no one is allowed to debate.
My wife and I live in a two-bedroom apartment and carpool together
five miles to our jobs. We also own a three-bedroom condo where our
daughter and granddaughter live. Our carbon footprint is about 5% of
Al Gore's, and if you're greener than Gore, you're green enough.
I'm tired of being told that drug addicts have a
disease, and I must help support and treat them, and pay for the
damage they do. Did a giant germ rush out of a dark alley, grab them,
and stuff white powder up their noses while they tried to fight it
off? I don't think Gay people choose to be Gay, but I damn sure think
druggies chose to take drugs. And I'm tired of harassment from cool
people treating me like a freak when I tell them I never tried
marijuana.
I'm tired of illegal aliens being called "undocumented
workers," especially the ones who aren't working, but are living on
welfare or crime. What's next? Calling drug dealers, "Undocumented
Pharmacists"? And, no, I'm not against Hispanics. Most of them are
Catholic, and it's been a few hundred years since Catholics wanted to
kill me for my religion. I'm willing to fast track for citizenship
any Hispanic person, who can speak English, doesn't have a criminal
record and who is self-supporting without family on welfare, or who
serves honorably for three years in our military.... Those are the
citizens we need.
I'm tired of hearing wealthy athletes, entertainers
and politicians of both parties talking about innocent mistakes,
stupid mistakes or youthful mistakes, when we all know they think
their only mistake was getting caught. I'm tired of people with a
sense of entitlement, rich or poor.
Speaking of poor, I'm tired of hearing people with
air-conditioned homes, color TVs and two cars called poor. The
majority of Americans didn't have that in 1970, but we didn't know we
were "poor." The poverty pimps have to keep changing the definition of
poor to keep the dollars flowing.
I'm real tired of people who don't take responsibility
for their lives and actions. I'm tired of hearing them blame the
government, or discrimination or big-whatever for their problems.
Yes, I'm d--- tired. But I'm also glad to be 63.
Because, mostly, I'm not going to have to see the world these people
are making. I'm just sorry for my granddaughter..
Robert A. Hall is a Marine Vietnam veteran who served
five terms in the Massachusetts State Senate
coroner on CSI if you watch that show.
“I'm 63 and I’m Tired"
by Robert A. Hall
cid:9FF94D62A1924BF7A27AAAE81003EC3C@user639bdd8637
I'm 63. Except for one semester in college when jobs
were scarce and a six-month period when I was between jobs, but
job-hunting every day, I've worked, hard, since I was 18. Despite some
health challenges, I still put in 50-hour weeks, and haven't called in
sick in seven or eight years. I make a good salary, but I didn't
inherit my job or my income, and I worked to get where I am. Given the
economy, there's no retirement in sight, and I'm tired. Very tired.
I'm tired of being told that I have to "spread the
wealth" to people who don't have my work ethic. I'm tired of being
told the government will take the money I earned, by force if
necessary, and give it to people too lazy to earn it.
I'm tired of being told that I have to pay more taxes
to "keep people in their homes." Sure, if they lost their jobs or got
sick, I'm willing to help. But if they bought McMansions at three
times the price of our paid-off, $250,000 condo, on one-third of my
salary, then let the left-wing Congress-critters who passed Fannie and
Freddie and the Community Reinvestment Act that created the bubble
help them with their own money.
I'm tired of being told how bad America is by
left-wing millionaires like Michael Moore, George Soros and Hollywood
Entertainers who live in luxury because of the opportunities America
offers. In thirty years, if they get their way, the United States will
have the economy of Zimbabwe, the freedom of the press of China, the
crime and violence of Mexico, the tolerance for Christian people of
Iran, and the freedom of speech of Venezuela.
I'm tired of being told that Islam is a "Religion of
Peace," when every day I can read dozens of stories of Muslim men
killing their sisters, wives and daughters for their family "honor";
of Muslims rioting over some slight offense; of Muslims murdering
Christian and Jews because they aren't "believers"; of Muslims burning
schools for girls; of Muslims stoning teenage rape victims to death
for "adultery"; of Muslims mutilating the genitals of little girls;
all in the name of Allah, because the Qur'an and Shari'a law tells
them to.
I'm tired of being told that "race doesn't matter" in
the post-racial world of Obama, when it's all that matters in
affirmative action jobs, lower college admission and graduation
standards for minorities (harming them the most), government contract
set-asides, tolerance for the ghetto culture of violence and
fatherless children that hurts minorities more than anyone, and in the
appointment of U.S. Senators from Illinois.
I'm tired of being told that out of "tolerance for
other cultures" we must let Saudi Arabia use our oil money to fund
mosques and mandrassa Islamic schools to preach hate in America, while
no American group is allowed to fund a church, synagogue or religious
school in Saudi Arabia to teach love and tolerance.
I'm tired of being told I must lower my living
standard to fight global warming, which no one is allowed to debate.
My wife and I live in a two-bedroom apartment and carpool together
five miles to our jobs. We also own a three-bedroom condo where our
daughter and granddaughter live. Our carbon footprint is about 5% of
Al Gore's, and if you're greener than Gore, you're green enough.
I'm tired of being told that drug addicts have a
disease, and I must help support and treat them, and pay for the
damage they do. Did a giant germ rush out of a dark alley, grab them,
and stuff white powder up their noses while they tried to fight it
off? I don't think Gay people choose to be Gay, but I damn sure think
druggies chose to take drugs. And I'm tired of harassment from cool
people treating me like a freak when I tell them I never tried
marijuana.
I'm tired of illegal aliens being called "undocumented
workers," especially the ones who aren't working, but are living on
welfare or crime. What's next? Calling drug dealers, "Undocumented
Pharmacists"? And, no, I'm not against Hispanics. Most of them are
Catholic, and it's been a few hundred years since Catholics wanted to
kill me for my religion. I'm willing to fast track for citizenship
any Hispanic person, who can speak English, doesn't have a criminal
record and who is self-supporting without family on welfare, or who
serves honorably for three years in our military.... Those are the
citizens we need.
I'm tired of hearing wealthy athletes, entertainers
and politicians of both parties talking about innocent mistakes,
stupid mistakes or youthful mistakes, when we all know they think
their only mistake was getting caught. I'm tired of people with a
sense of entitlement, rich or poor.
Speaking of poor, I'm tired of hearing people with
air-conditioned homes, color TVs and two cars called poor. The
majority of Americans didn't have that in 1970, but we didn't know we
were "poor." The poverty pimps have to keep changing the definition of
poor to keep the dollars flowing.
I'm real tired of people who don't take responsibility
for their lives and actions. I'm tired of hearing them blame the
government, or discrimination or big-whatever for their problems.
Yes, I'm d--- tired. But I'm also glad to be 63.
Because, mostly, I'm not going to have to see the world these people
are making. I'm just sorry for my granddaughter..
Robert A. Hall is a Marine Vietnam veteran who served
five terms in the Massachusetts State Senate
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
