Scott Johnson on powerline.blog
The Obama administration has a message for the world. The message is something along these lines: The United States is very bad, but Barack Obama is very good. He seeks to redeem America from its evil.

Eye on the UN has compiled the disgusting video below of the United States abasing itself before some of the most reprehensible regimes in the world. I believe this is what goes under the name of "smart diplomacy" in the Obama administration.

The video depicts in condensed form the three-hour appearance of the United States in the dock at the UN Human Rights Council to present its first-ever universal periodic review report and receive recommendations for improvement from council members. Eye on the UN's Anne Bayefsky explained at the time that 56 countries lined up for the opportunity to have at the U.S. representatives, many standing in line overnight for the opporunity to be near the top of the list. Making it to the head of the line were Cuba, Venezuela, Russia, Iran, Nicaragua, Bolivia, and North Korea.

Assistant Secretary of State Michael Posner made an appearance to play his designated role demeaning the United States on behalf of the Obama administration. Posner replied "thanks to very many of the delegations for thoughtful comments and suggestions" shortly after Cuba said the U.S. blockade of Cuba was a "crime of genocide," Iran "condemned and expressed its deep concern over the situation of human rights" in the United States, and North Korea said it was "concerned by systematic widespread violations committed by the United States at home and abroad."

Carl in Jerusalem aptly comments: "The key foreign policy goal of the Obama administration is to destroy the notion that America is an exceptional nation, and to cut it down to the same size as brutal dictatorships around the world. Trying to cut down America's most feisty ally by forcing it into a situation where it will have to fight for its very existence is part of the same 'strategy.'"

New Congress Most pro israel ever-because it has more republicans

New members of Congress have expressed their support for a strong U.S.-Israel alliance.
Article photo 2
The House’s current makeup is 240 Republicans and 190 Democrats, with five races (all involving Democratic incumbents) still undecided as of this writing.
112th Congress Expected to be Most
Pro-Israel Ever
SHARE STORY email | PRINT ARTICLE PRINT THIS ARTICLE

Despite the many changes brought about by the 2010 midterm elections, the incoming 112th Congress is expected to be the most pro-Israel Congress ever. Many of Israel’s strongest supporters were reelected.

Sixteen new senators have been elected to the 112th Congress. Republicans have picked up a net gain of six seats in the upper chamber. The newly-elected Senate consists of 51 Democrats, 47 Republicans and 2 Independents who caucus with the Democrats (Sens. Joe Lieberman and Bernie Sanders).

AIPAC lay leaders and staff have established relationships with every new senator, and have received position papers on U.S. Middle East policy from all of the freshmen-to-be. In those papers, the new members of Congress express their support for a strong U.S.-Israel relationship. Many also emphasize the danger of Iran’s nuclear program and other issues important to U.S. policy in the region.

Obama honors Israel's enemies

Many in the Jewish community were up in arms when Mary Robinson, the Irish diplomat with a long record of hostility to Israel, , was awarded the Medal of Freedom by President Obama. An argument can be made that one of the other recipients of that medal, Bishop Desmond Tutu, has been and continues to be an even more blatant Israel hater. What does it say about the President of the United States, when both are among the designees in the same year? Bishop Tutu, demonstrating his inner Jimmy Carter, is among those now advocating boycotts, sanctions and divestment from Israel
http://tinyurl.com/26ams5c Richard Baehr

Friedman on best way to help poor

why are terrorists at Capital Hill Prayer sessions?

An Al Qaeda leader, the head of a designated terror organization and a confessed jihadist-in-training are among a "Who's Who" of controversial figures who have participated in weekly prayer sessions on Capitol Hill since the 2001 terror attacks, an investigation by FoxNews.com reveals.
The Congressional Muslim Staff Association (CMSA) has held weekly Friday Jummah prayers for more than a decade, and guest preachers are often invited to lead the service. The group held prayers informally for about eight years before gaining official status in 2006 under the sponsorship of Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., one of two Muslims currently serving in Congress. The second Muslim congressman, Rep. Andre Carson, D-Ind., joined as co-sponsor after he was elected in 2008.
Among those who FoxNews.com determined have attended the prayer services during the Clinton, George W. Bush and Obama administrations are:
— Anwar al-Awlaki, the notorious Al Qaeda cleric believed to be hiding in Yemen and the lone American on the U.S. government’s capture or kill list, who conducted a prayer service on Capitol Hill shortly after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
— Randall “Ismail” Royer, a former communications associate for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), who confessed in 2004 to receiving jihadist training in Pakistan. He is serving a 20-year prison term.
— Anwar Hajjaj, former president of Taibah International Aid Association, which was designated a terrorist organization by the U.S. and U.N. in 2004.
— Esam Omeish, the former president of the Muslim American Society, who was forced to resign from the Virginia Commission on Immigration in 2007 after calling for "the jihad way," among other remarks.
— Salam Al-Marayati, president of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, who was forced to step down from a national terrorism committee post in 1999 for pro-terrorist comments.
— Nihad Awad, CAIR executive director, who attended a Hamas meeting in Philadelphia in 1993 that was wiretapped by the FBI.
— Johari Abdul Malik, Dar al-Hijrah imam, who made statements in support of convicted and suspected terrorists who attended his mosque.
— Tariq Ramadan, a Muslim scholar banned from the U.S. for six years beginning in 2004 for his alleged ties and donations to terror groups. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton lifted Ramadan's ban in January.
— Abdulaziz Othman Al-Twaijri, the head of a division of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, considered a foreign agent by the U.S.
It is unclear who else has attended these services, because there appears to be no public record of those CMSA has invited to Capitol Hill. The group’s website, included in the official congressional staff associations directory, displays an error message. And out of the more than 25 people associated with CMSA whom FoxNews.com contacted for this article — members, participants, guests, listed officers, congressional sponsors and Muslim advocacy groups — only one person was willing to speak.
“The U.S. Capitol ought to be one of the most transparent and public bodies, yet they get some public criticism about who they’re bringing in and they pull down their website," said Patrick Poole, an anti-terrorism consultant to law enforcement and the U.S. military who has written about CMSA for the conservative blog Pajamas Media.
"That’s not behavior conducive to people drawing public salaries and working in the halls of Congress,” Poole said.
But a portrait of the Jummah prayer meetings can be gleaned through video footage, news reports, court records and social media posts. And what emerges is a "Who’s Who" of controversial characters cycling through the doors of the Capitol on the invite of CMSA.
“There is a pattern of seriously bad actors not just being involved with, but leading this organization,” Poole said.
“There really needs to be some kind of investigation into who else CMSA is or has been bringing onto the Hill.”
The most notorious of the lot is al-Awlaki, who is seen leading the prayer service on Capitol Hill in video footage included in "MUHAMMAD: Life of a Prophet," a documentary that aired on PBS in 2002.
In the footage, Jameel Johnson, Rep. Gregory Meeks’ former chief of staff and founder and former president of CMSA, is seen sitting next to Randall “Ismail” Royer, a former communications associate for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) who is now serving a 20-year sentence after pleading guilty in 2004 to helping jihadists from Virginia gain access to a terrorist training camp in Pakistan. That camp was run by Lashkar-e-Taiba, which was designated a terrorist organization by the United States in December 2001. One year before Royer was filmed attending the Awlaki prayer service, he attended jihad training camps in Pakistan, documents show.
Nihad Awad, executive director of CAIR, can also be seen at the Awlaki prayer session. Awad has spoken out in support of Hamas and attended a 1993 Hamas meeting in Philadelphia that was wiretapped by the FBI, according to public record and court documents from the Holy Land Foundation trial. CAIR was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the trial.
Last year, the FBI severed ties with CAIR due to evidence of the group’s ties to networks supporting Hamas, which the State Department has designated as a terrorist group, according to documents obtained by the Investigative Project on Terrorism, a watchdog group.
"The FBI has had to limit its formal contact with CAIR field offices until certain issues are addressed by CAIR's national headquarters," FBI spokesman John Miller told FoxNews.com last year. "CAIR's leadership is aware of this. Beyond that, we have no further comment."
Awad's assistant, Asma Gheyoub, told FoxNews.com that she had passed along FoxNews.com's request for comment and that Awad would be in contact. But Awad has not responded.
Ibrahim Hooper, CAIR’s national communications director, also appears to have attended the Awlaki prayer service.
When asked by FoxNews.com if he had attended the service on Capitol Hill, Hooper said:
“Do you realize that the prayer services are open to the public, staffers, we have no say in who offers the prayer — or are you just trying to smear Muslims?”
When asked who chooses who offers the prayer, Hooper said, “You’d have to ask the staffers.”
When asked if he is in the video of the service or had attended any service on Capitol Hill led by Awlaki, Hooper said, “I don’t even remember. I don’t have a real big interest in furthering Fox News' anti-Muslim agenda, but thanks for calling.”
Sources told FoxNews.com that CMSA is comprised mostly of young Hill staffers who, for the most part, do not play a role in bringing in speakers; they say organizations like CAIR have a heavy hand in selecting and bringing in outside guests.
Ibrahim Ramey, human and civil rights director at Muslim American Society Freedom, a national Muslim advocacy group with a branch in Washington, told FoxNews.com that CMSA would never support anyone advocating violence against the U.S. Ramey said he's attended numerous CMSA functions and counts some of its members as friends.
"I do know that Sheikh Awlaki has declared war on America and American civilian targets and that he would not be welcome to participate in any CMSA program on Capitol Hill," Ramey said.
"He has made very clear statements about killing innocents, but he had been up until years ago, he had been a fairly respected member of the Northern Virginia Muslim community, where he would be now would not be compatible with the work we're doing at CMSA."
But video shot by Roll Call in April 2010 shows another set of controversial figures, including Anwar Hajjaj, who led the prayer.
To see Roll Call's video click here.
Hajjaj, tax filings show, was president of Taibah International Aid Association, which was designated as a terrorist organization by the U.S. Treasury Department in 2004 for its ties to a network funneling money to Hamas.
Hajjaj and Usama bin Laden’s nephew, Abdullah bin Laden, co-founded World Assembly of Muslim Youth, which the FBI has deemed a “suspected terrorist organization” since 1996, according to a complaint filed in New York federal court on behalf of the families of Sept. 11 victims. The judge refused to dismiss the charges against the World Assembly in September, saying the charges against it were "sufficient to demonstrate that they are knowingly and intentionally providing material support to Al Qaeda."

Hajjaj’s involvement with CMSA dates back at least to 2006, according to reports.
And there are others.
Esam Omeish, former president of the Muslim American Society, has led CMSA prayer services on Capitol Hill. He's called for "the jihad way," supported suicide bombers and advocated for the impeachment of President George W. Bush, according to reports and video.
According to State Department documents, “In 2007, he had to resign from the Virginia Commission on Immigration due to comments he made regarding “Israel’s war machine” during the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah conflict. He is also accused of supporting suicide attacks and violence in achieving a Palestinian state.”

Another controversial figure is Salam Al-Marayati, president of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, who spoke at a CMSA forum aired on CSPAN in August of this year. In 1999, Marayati was forced to step down from a national terrorism committee post after some inflammatory statements he'd made became public.
In a 2003 interview with the Los Angeles Times, Marayati said his organization's members were angry at "the FBI's policy of targeting people because of their race and religion."
"That's what they've been doing since the attacks, and we don't know of any case that has resulted in the arrest, indictment or prosecution of a terrorist," he said.
In 2006, at a fundraising dinner for Sami Al-Arian, who pleaded guilty to a charge of conspiring to provide services to the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, a designated terror group, Marayati said:
"So if we have this case where we are being dictated upon, not only on terminology, but dictated upon on who speaks for us, and our organizations, our charities, are shut down one by one. Therefore, brothers and sisters, there is a storm that is coming. That storm is going to be worse than Japanese internment."
In an interview in 2000, former FBI counterterrorism chief Steven Pomerantz said, “Mr. Marayati has justified and defended the activities of terrorist organizations such as Hamas, which, among other violent activities, has been involved in the murder of American citizens. He has also categorized the Hezbollah terrorist attack, which killed 241 U.S. Marines, as 'a military operation.'"
But Ramey denied that anyone would knowingly bring supporters of violence onto the Hill, calling the work of CMSA and violent jihadists mutually exclusive.
"I'm sure that there is no support for anything that is illegal or violent vis-a-vis the United States," he said.
"We repudiate those things — we believe social change is necessary but something we would want to accomplish legally, with above-board efforts."
The CMSA Twitter feed identifies other guests on Capitol Hill:
— Johari Abdul Malik, the imam of Dar al-Hijrah, the Falls Church, Va., mosque where Awlaki was once imam, has made statements in support of members of his mosque convicted on terror-related charges, according to reports and documents. Among them is Omar Abu Ali, who was convicted in 2005 of providing support to Al Qaeda and plotting to assassinate President George W. Bush.
Malik, who is on a State Department junket in Afghanistan, told FoxNews.com via e-mail that he was heading abroad and wouldn’t be able to comment until mid November.
— Tariq Ramadan, who was banned from the U.S. for six years for his alleged donations to Hamas, a group since classified by the U.S. Treasury Department as a terrorist organization. In April, CMSA’s Twitter account announced the group as “Honorary Hosts for a Capitol Hill welcome reception this afternoon for Professor Tariq Ramadan! He’s beginning his U.S. speaking tour.”

— Abdulaziz Othman Al-Twaijri, the head of the Islamic Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, a division of the Organization of Islamic Conference, attended a CMSA briefing in May at the Capitol Visitor Center.
“The Organization of the Islamic Conference — he’s a foreign agent,” Poole said. “That’s like having the Iranian government come in and speak on Capitol Hill.”
The Capitol Hill chaplain, the Rev. Daniel Coughlin, said there are numerous staff organizations on the Hill — the Black Caucus and the Golf Association, for example — but only a few official religious ones. And they, like the non-religious staff associations, are overseen by the Committee on House Administration.
There are also other ad hoc prayer groups that meet in an unofficial capacity.
"It's more than prayers," Coughlin said. "Each different religious group has different sessions, maybe they have speakers or a social."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/11/11/congressional-muslim-prayer-group-terror-ties/

SC Please help save America

AND THE TRUTH SHALL SET US FREE !

Finally ! The Supreme Court is listening !!! Hooray !

Our New Dictator May Be In Deep Trouble...

Chief Justice John Roberts, U.S. Supreme Court.
According to sources who watch the inner workings of the federal government,
a smack down of Barack Obama by the U.S. Supreme Court may be inevitable.
Ever since Obama assumed the office of President, critics have hammered him on a number of Constitutional issues.

Critics have complained that much, if not all of Obama's major initiatives run headlong into Constitutional roadblocks on the power of the federal government.

Obama certainly did not help himself in the eyes of the Court when he used the venue of the State of the Union address early in the year to publicly flog the Court over its ruling that the First Amendment grants the right to various organizations to run political ads during the time of an election.

The tongue-lashing clearly did not sit well with the Court, as demonstrated by Justice Sam Alito, true, ‘when Obama told a flat-out lie concerning the Court's ruling.

As it has turned out, this was a watershed moment in the relationship between the executive and the judicial branches of the federal government. Obama publicly declared war on the court, even as he blatantly continued to propose legislation that flies in the face of every known Constitutional principle upon which this nation has stood for over 200 years.

Obama has even identified Chief Justice John Roberts as his number one enemy, that is, apart from Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, and so on.

And it is no accident that the one swing-vote on the court, Justice Anthony Kennedy, stated recently that he has no intention of retiring until 'Obama is gone.'

Apparently, the Court has had enough.
The Roberts Court has signaled, in a very subtle manner, of course, that it intends to address the issues about which Obama critics have been screaming to high heaven.
A ruling against Obama on any one of these important issues could potentially cripple the Administration.
Such a thing would be long overdue.

First, there is Obama Care, which violates the Constitutional principle barring the federal government from forcing citizens to purchase something.
And no, this is not the same thing as states requiring drivers to purchase car insurance, as some of the intellectually-impaired claim.
The Constitution limits FEDERAL government, not state governments, from such things, and further, not everyone has to drive, and thus, a citizen could opt not to purchase car insurance by simply deciding not to drive a vehicle.

In the Obama Care world, however, no citizen can 'opt out.'
Second, sources state that the Roberts court has quietly accepted information concerning discrepancies in Obama's history that raise serious questions about his eligibility for the office of President.
The charge goes far beyond the birth certificate issue. This information involves possible fraudulent use of a Social Security number in Connecticut , while Obama was a high school student in Hawaii .

And that is only the tip of the iceberg.
Third, several cases involving possible criminal activity, conflicts of interest, and pay-for-play cronyism could potentially land many Administration officials, if not Obama himself, in hot water with the Court.
Frankly, in the years this writer has observed politics, nothing comes close to comparing with the rampant corruption of this Administration, not even during the Nixon years.

Nixon and the Watergate conspirators look like choirboys compared to the jokers that populate this Administration.
In addition, the Court will eventually be forced to rule on the dreadful decision of the Obama DOJ suing the state of Arizona .

That, too, could send the Obama doctrine of open borders to an early grave, given that the Administration refuses to enforce federal law on illegal aliens.

And finally, the biggie that could potentially send the entire house of cards tumbling in a free-fall is the latest revelation concerning the Obama-Holder Department of Justice and its refusal to pursue the New Black Panther Party.

The group was caught on tape committing felonies by attempting to intimidate Caucasian voters into staying away from the polls.
A whistle-blower who resigned from the DOJ is now charging Holder with the deliberate refusal to pursue cases against Blacks, particularly those who are involved in radical hate-groups, such as the New Black Panthers, who have been caught on tape calling for the murder of white people and their babies.

This one is a biggie that could send the entire Administration crumbling--that is, if the Justices have the guts to draw a line in the sand at the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Commen sense died-

Obituary printed in the London Times - Interesting and sadly rather true.



Today we mourn the passing of a beloved old friend, Common Sense, who has been with us for many years. No one knows for sure how old he was, since his birth records were long ago lost in bureaucratic red tape.

He will be remembered as having cultivated such valuable lessons as:

- Knowing when to come in out of the rain;
- Why the early bird gets the worm;
- Life isn't always fair;
- and maybe it was my fault.

Common Sense lived by simple, sound financial policies (don't spend more than you can earn) and reliable strategies (adults, not children, are in charge).

His health began to deteriorate rapidly when well-intentioned but overbearing regulations were set in place. Reports of a 6-year-old boy charged with sexual harassment for kissing a classmate; teens suspended from school for using mouthwash after lunch; and a teacher fired for reprimanding an unruly student, only worsened his condition.

Common Sense lost ground when parents attacked teachers for doing the job that they themselves had failed to do in disciplining their unruly children. It declined even further when schools were required to get parental consent to administer sun lotion or an aspirin to a student; but could not inform parents when a student became pregnant and wanted to have an abortion.

Common Sense lost the will to live as the churches became businesses; and criminals received better treatment than their victims. Common Sense took a beating when you couldn't defend yourself from a burglar in your own home and the burglar could sue you for assault.

Common Sense finally gave up the will to live, after a woman failed to realize that a steaming cup of coffee was hot. She spilled a little in her lap, and was promptly awarded a huge settlement. Common Sense was preceded in death, by his parents, Truth and Trust, by his wife, Discretion, by his daughter, Responsibility, and by his son, Reason.

He is survived by his 4 stepbrothers; I Know My Rights, I Want It Now, Someone Else Is To Blame, and I'm A Victim.

Not many attended his funeral because so few realized he was gone. If you still remember him, pass this on. If not, join the majority and do nothing.

Repub win will help fight Iran

The Hill blog
The World from The Hill: GOP majority would increase pressure on Iran policy
By Bridget Johnson - 10/31/10 05:00 PM ET

Republicans see a majority in the next Congress as an opportunity to put heat on the administration to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.

They'll be joined by Democrats who have been vocal this Congress about the threat, expressing fears of a nuclear Iran and reminding the White House that the clock is ticking on reining in the country’s nuclear ambitions.




Republican Study Committee Chairman Rep. Tom Price (Ga.) told The Hill that, with an expected GOP majority in the House next Congress, it will be time to pull together as a conference and get like-minded Democrats on board an effort to push even tougher sanctions against Iran.

“The question that the American people are asking is, ‘Are we in a better position vis-à-vis Iran than we were two years ago?’” Price said. “I don't think anyone can say we are.”

Price said the "conversation has to occur with the leaders on the other side as well as the president."

"Are you serious about what you say? If so, then we need to see greater action from a sanctions standpoint," Price said.

Iran has brushed off recent sanctions, boasting that the measures have not had an adverse impact on the country. Price said this reflects the perception of a lack of resolve on the part of the administration to really get tough on Iran.

A Democratic congressional aide told The Hill a bipartisan effort is definitely expected, with more members taking it upon themselves to write to individual companies and ask them to curtail or eliminate certain business dealings with Iran.

For example, a bipartisan group of legislators wrote to the chairman of Spain's largest oil company, Repsol, in July, following up on news reports that the firm was pulling out of a deal to develop a gas field in Iran. “We hope such reports are true, and we encourage you to follow through by completely, expeditiously, and verifiably ceasing to do business in and with Iran,” the letter said.

Demonstrating that the effort has been truly crossing the aisle, Republicans signing the letter were Reps. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (Fla.), who is expected to take the gavel at the Foreign Affairs Committee if Republicans regain control of the House, Thad McCotter (Mich.), Dan Burton (Ind.), Elton Gallegly (Calif.), Bob Inglis (S.C.), Ed Royce (Calif.). Don Manzullo (Ill.), and Jeff Fortenberry (La.). Democrats were House Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation and Trade Chairman Brad Sherman (Calif.), Gary Ackerman (N.Y.), Eliot Engel (N.Y.), Ted Deutch (Fla.), Ron Klein (Fla.), Joe Baca (Calif.) and Gerry Connolly (Va.).

Ros-Lehtinen and Sherman were behind much of the legislation dealing with Iran this Congress, again attracting bipartisan co-sponsors.

And in an unusual pairing last spring, Reps. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) and Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.) led a letter to Obama -- with 363 House signatures -- urging the president to take “punishing measures” against Iran and to "fulfill your June 2008 pledge that you would do 'everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.'"

The aide said that among Democrats there is “a group of members who are willing to do more and push the administration to do more.”

Price has “no doubt” that the GOP will be allying with a number of Democrats on Iran, which he called “front and center” on the party’s national security agenda as outlined in the “Pledge to America.”

Iran began loading fuel into its Russian-built Bushehr nuclear reactor on Tuesday. The Islamic Republic has long claimed that its nuclear ambitions are confined to energy purposes, but is under a watchful and worried world eye that doubts the intentions of the saber-rattling regime are peaceful.

On Friday, Iran said it would be ready for nuclear talks after Nov. 10 with Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the U.S. But like clockwork, Tehran retreated on this Sunday when an aide to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Iran would sit down and talk with the P5+1 -- except the nuclear issue would not be up for discussion.

On state-run TV Saturday night, Ahmadinejad reiterated that the West has "no option but negotiating with Iran," but said they should only come to the table as friends of the Islamic Republic. "(We ask) on the basis of what framework are you going to negotiate? Is it based on justice and respect? But they do not dare announce it yet," Ahmadinejad said.


Price said he’s "not certain what tea leaves the administration is reading" that leads the White House to believe that more attempts at negotiations will bear fruit.

“We don't have to see the moves of the chess pieces,” he said of the closed-door diplomatic overtures in Obama’s term. "We do have to see that we're being victorious in the policy. ... The results so far have been ineffective.”

Many lawmakers see Iran's hot-and-cold approach to talks as buying time to continue its nuclear ambitions unabated. In addition, the rhetoric coming out Tehran is largely unchanged in the past two years, with Ahmadinejad even recently launching his sharpest attacks yet against Washington.

“They have such nerve to threaten us and say all options are on the table. May the undertaker bury you, your table and your body, which has soiled the world," Ahmadinejad said earlier this month. Shortly before, Obama had called Ahmadinejad’s 9/11 conspiracy theories at the United Nations “inexcusable,” “offensive” and “hateful.”

And though jobs and the economy will be foremost on voters' minds Tuesday, "and rightly so," Price said national security and Iran rank high when voters "drill down to the next level of issues."

"Without a doubt, the American people are very, very concerned about what they see as a lack of resolve on the part of the administration," he said.


and from the Jerusalem Post\

Reps urge Obama to oppose Palestinian state declaration
By HILARY LEILA KRIEGER
10/31/2010 01:57


Rep. Tom Price of Georgia writes letter to Obama on behalf of the 115-member Republican Study Committee.
Talkbacks (9)
WASHINGTON – The chairman of a major Republican congressional caucus is urging US President Barack Obama to oppose any UN effort to recognize a unilaterally declared Palestinian state.

Rep. Tom Price of Georgia wrote Obama on behalf of the 115-member Republican Study Committee on Thursday, asking the president to push back against reports suggesting that Palestinians are considering appealing to the UN rather than negotiating with Israel.

RELATED:
'Israel may lease east Jerusalem from a Palestinian state'
Abbas: PA will ask UN to recognize Palestinian state

“Any support for such a measure would create a serious barrier to peace between Israel and the Palestinians,” the letter stated.

Price also pressed Obama to back Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s call for the Palestinians to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

Negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians have ground to a halt after Israel refused to extend a freeze on settlements that ended in September and the Palestinians have refused to negotiate without a freeze in place. Netanyahu suggested that he would reinstate a freeze if Palestinians recognized the Jewish nature of the State of Israel.

Both Israelis and Palestinians are now watching the US elections before making major moves, and both Democrats and Republicans are seizing on issues connected to Israel to attract Jewish voters.



On Friday, two Jewish Democratic representatives blasted Republican Eric Cantor of Virginia, who is in line to be majority leader should Republicans capture the House on November 2, for suggesting that Israel aid could be separated from the general foreign aid budget and be considered part of defense spending.

Cantor made the suggestion in response to concerns in the pro- Israel community that aid to Israel would be cut by a Republican- dominated Congress whose members have made budgettrimming a priority and have raised questions about the size of foreign aid.

“It would absolutely isolate aid to Israel,” New York Democratic Rep. Steve Israel warned on a conference call arranged by the National Jewish Democratic Council. “Now you would have a bigger and more precise target to go after.”

He was joined on the call by Florida Democratic Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who attacked the Republican leadership for disrespecting the Holocaust by continuing to support Richard Iott in Ohio despite his participation in World War II reenactments where he took the part of a Nazi soldier.

Wasserman Schultz criticized “the shocking indifference that the Republicans have to trivialization of the Holocaust.”

In one race in which Israel issues have featured prominently, however, a new poll by J Street found that the focus on the Jewish state had not significantly moved voters.

Incumbent Democratic Rep. Jan Schakowsky of Illinois, who has received $70,000 from J Street, is trying to fend off Republican Joel Pollak, who has spent around a half million dollars on his campaign.

He has attacked her positions on Israel, particularly the support she has received from J Street, a self-described “pro-Israel, propeace” lobby.



Though he has a slim chance of defeating Schakowsky on election day, the J Street poll showed that Jewish voters were still backing her by 65 percent to 23%.

When asked whether the criticism leveled against Schakowsky on her Israel record affected their support for the candidates, 36% of the 400 Jewish registered voters interviewed said it made them more likely to support Schakowsky, and only 21% said they were more likely to back Pollak as a result.

Time To Kick The One-Party Habit

Time To Kick The One-Party Habit

More Articles By Uri KaufmanUri Kaufman
Posted Oct 27 2010
For Jewish-Americans, the December date that lives in infamy is December 17. For on that day in 1862, Major-General Ulysses S. Grant issued General Order 11.

The order, which covered Grant's military district in portions of Tennessee, Mississippi and Kentucky, declared that "Jews, as a class violating every regulation of trade established by the Treasury Department and also department orders, are hereby expelled from the [Military District] within twenty-four hours from the receipt of this order."

Those who dared to return would be "arrested and held in confinement until an opportunity occurs of sending them out as prisoners."

The order was countermanded by Abraham Lincoln before anyone was expelled. But it became an issue when Grant ran for president in 1868. How to justify the wholesale expulsion of an entire people? Grant asserted that he was furious over illegal smuggling of Southern cotton to the North and that "the order was issued and sent without any reflection and without thinking of the Jews as a set or race to themselves, but simply as persons who had ... violated an order."
Advertisement

This rather curious defense was apparently enough for America's tiny Jewish community. In 1868, a majority of them cast their ballot for the Republican candidate for president - General Ulysses S. Grant.

Time has softened the hard choices facing Jewish Americans. It would be somewhat more difficult today for a candidate to win nomination after advocating a mass expulsion. But the Jewish practice of voting for candidates who work against Jewish interests lives on.

A politician could play out his career in a thousand arenas where working against his supporters is suicide and only one where it isn't. But that one applies when he works against Jewish Americans. In the 19th and early 20th centuries this phenomenon worked to the benefit of Republicans like Grant. Since that time it has worked to the benefit of Democrats.

One of the first to benefit from this trend was Franklin Roosevelt. He and Harry Truman never drew less than 75 percent of the Jewish vote and sometimes gained as much as 90 percent of it.

How did Franklin Roosevelt repay the Jewish community? By obstructing the issuance of visas to Jewish refugees seeking to flee Europe. In June 1940, Assistant Secretary of State Breckinridge Long ordered American consuls "to put every obstacle in the way [to] postpone and postpone and postpone the granting of visas" in order to "delay and effectively stop" all such immigration.

Roosevelt knew, however, how to grant entry to refugees when he wanted to. In August 1940 he exploited a loophole in America's immigration law for British children, declaring them "visitors" who intended to return home.

The story of Roosevelt and the Jews grew even darker during the war. I am prepared to concede that any reasonable cost-benefit analysis argued against bombing the rail lines to Auschwitz. The Germans would have repaired them quickly and hundreds of hard-to-train flight crews would have been lost - flight crews that were needed to win the war. What I cannot concede, indeed what I cannot understand, is why Roosevelt didn't simply announce to the world what was going on in Auschwitz. Eli Wiesel once said something that I recall hearing from many others when I was growing up: Roosevelt knew what was going on the camps, but the Jews didn't. Why didn't he go on the BBC or Voice of America - which everyone in Europe listened to - and warn them not to get on the trains? For that matter, why didn't he warn the Germans that those involved in the killing would be brought to justice after the war?

A simple announcement like that would have cost the allies nothing and would have saved countless lives. Why didn't he do it? This is one of those questions that have no answer.

* * * * *

Harry Truman has often been portrayed as a great friend of Israel because of his recognition of the Jewish state. In truth, this was an empty gesture that had little influence on events. What had far greater influence was the arms embargo he imposed against Israel. It was precisely because of that embargo that the Soviets tilted in favor of Israel and allowed Czechoslovakia to sell weapons to Jerusalem. The Czech arms deal was the decisive event outside the field of battle and it would have happened whether Truman had recognized Israel or not.

During the fighting that followed Israel's declaration of independence, Israeli troops had Egyptian soldiers surrounded in the Negev. Truman demanded that Israel free the Egyptians without getting a peace treaty in return. The Israeli army also held a large chunk of the Sinai Peninsula as well as two villages in Lebanon. Truman likewise demanded that Israel withdraw immediately and unconditionally from both.

At the same time, Syria held three small pieces of Israeli territory. David Ben-Gurion asked that the Truman administration work with similar dispatch to bring about a Syrian withdrawal. If Israel was being forced to hand over Arab land in the Sinai and Lebanon, it seemed only fair that Syria be forced to hand over Israeli land near the Kineret. The Truman administration refused. It never pressured Syria, choosing instead to broker an agreement to have that territory, and other territory in Israel, left demilitarized.

In other words, the Truman administration took the position that the Syrian army did not have to withdraw from Israeli territory unless the Israeli army withdrew from an equal amount of Israeli territory. This outrageous double standard bedevils the region to this day because Syria now takes the position that in return for peace Israel must withdraw not only from the Golan Heights but from the demilitarized zone as well.

It's true that Truman's successor, Dwight Eisenhower, displayed similar hostility toward Israel following the '56 Sinai War. But Eisenhower didn't get 75 percent of the Jewish vote as Truman had.

In the 1960s a Jewish American could feel good voting for the Democrats. John Kennedy was the first American president to sell arms to Jerusalem. Yes, they were defensive arms only, and Kennedy's Mideast record was troubling in several areas. But Kennedy did choose as his vice president Lyndon Johnson, who had been one of Israel's staunchest defenders in the Senate. And when Johnson succeeded Kennedy as president, he maintained that close relationship; indeed, a plausible argument can be made that LBJ was the best friend Israel's ever had in the Oval Office.

The Jewish people will forever owe a debt of gratitude to Johnson, as they do his successor, Richard Nixon, who came through for Israel when it mattered in 1973.

* * * * *

But in 1976 Democratic voters (not just Jews) should have been made to wear dunce caps and sit in the corner, having nominated for president Jimmy Carter instead of Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson and sending him to the White House.

In fairness, it should be said that even if Scoop Jackson had been elected, the Camp David Peace Treaty probably would have turned out the same: full withdrawal from Sinai in return for full peace, and agreeing to disagree on Jerusalem.

That doesn't change the fact that Jimmy Carter treated Israel with nothing but unbending hostility. In his diary, Carter blamed Israel for every impasse, saw a Jewish lobbyist hiding behind every bush, and wrote that Sadat deserved the Nobel Peace Prize while Begin did not. The Israelis were particularly enraged by Carter's insistence that a letter be included in the Camp David Accords stating that East Jerusalem was occupied territory that would have to be returned.

"Why," Moshe Dayan asked in his memoirs, "was the Jewish Quarter in the Old City regarded as 'conquered territory,' held by us in contravention of international law? Simply because the Jordanian Arab Legion conquered it in 1948, destroyed its synagogues, killed or took captive the Jewish civilians who lived there? What was there holy about the military conquest by the Jordanian Army in 1948, and profane about our victory in the 1967 war - a war which also started with Jordan's attack on Israel?"

None of that seemed to have fazed America's Jewish community. At a particularly low point, the United Jewish Appeal honored Lillian Carter, Jimmy Carter's mother, as its Outstanding Humanitarian of the Year. She declared, "I've never been around so many Jews before" - and got a standing ovation. Incredibly, Carter received a plurality of the Jewish vote when he ran against Ronald Reagan in 1980, garnering 45 percent to Reagan's 39 percent. (Third party candidate John Anderson picked up the rest of the Jewsih vote.)

How fortunate that the American people could see what American Jews could not. The 1980s were a particularly difficult time for Israel. Those years witnessed the destruction of Saddam's nuclear reactor, the First Lebanon War, the Sabra and Shatilla massacre, Israel's economic collapse in 1985, the arrest of Jonathan Pollard, the leak by Mordecai Vanunu of Israel's nuclear capability, and the First Intifada. I shudder to think what might have happened if even one of those events had occurred on Jimmy Carter's watch. Ronald Reagan never wavered in his support.

As Moshe Dayan tells it in his memoir, there was only man in the Carter administration even more hostile to Israel than Carter himself. "What I resented most," he writes, "was the part played by Vice President Mondale . I was disgusted." In 1984, when Reagan was reelected to a second term with 59 percent of the general vote, Jews gave 67 percent of their votes to his Democratic challenger - Walter Mondale.

In more recent times, no one talked with greater emotion about Israel than Bill Clinton. He bid "shalom" to his chaver Yitzhak Rabin and never tired of quoting his pastor, whose dying words were "Don't forget Israel." I saw him tell the pastor story in New York City. There wasn't a dry eye in the house.

One can only wonder, then, what Clinton was thinking in 1993 when Hizbullah started a border war with Israel. At a time during which Hizbullah had murdered more Americans than any other terror group - this was before 9/11 - Clinton decided to pressure his chaver Rabin into a cease-fire agreement after just ten days. He did the same thing in 1996 to Prime Minister Shimon Peres after just seventeen days. Hizbullah concluded that Washington would always come to the rescue. Not surprisingly, after each such rescue it went right back to shooting at Israel.

When Hizbullah attacked Israel in 2006, kidnapping Regev and Goldwasser and killing eight other soldiers, the group told Lebanon's prime minister not to worry. The infidel Jews would bomb for a few days and then they'd be forced to stop.

What Hizbullah failed to take into account was that this time there was a Republican in the White House. George W. Bush reasoned that if other countries had the right to fight back, then Israel should enjoy that right as well. With no American pressure to speak of, the war lasted 34 days. It was the only war in the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict that Jerusalem started on its own terms and ended on its own terms. When the guns fell silent, there was rubble piled high in Beirut and a new set of rules on the ground. The border between Israel and Lebanon has been almost totally quiet ever since.

The contrast between Clinton and Bush was just as stark with respect to the Palestinians. When Baruch Goldstein killed 29 Palestinians on Purim in 1994, the Clinton administration sprang into action. Despite the fact that Goldstein acted alone, the administration allowed the Security Council to condemn Israel and even set up an international observer force in Hebron to help protect Palestinians.

When Palestinians attacked Israelis in an organized fashion with claims of responsibility, the response from Clinton was of a different kind altogether. After Benjamin Netanyahu, in his first go-round as prime minister, opened the door to the Kotel Tunnels, Yasir Arafat started a mini-war that left dozens dead. Clinton blamed the episode on a startled Netanyahu and demanded concessions from Israel.

The same thing happened after Netanyahu announced new building in Har Homa. Arafat responded by emptying out Palestinian jails, a café in Tel Aviv was bombed - and the Clinton administration blamed Netanyahu. In September 2000, after the trumped up "provocation" of Ariel Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount, Arafat almost certainly figured he was back in the driver's seat. The next day he started the al-Aksa Intifada.

George W. Bush, derided by the vast majority of American Jews, stood up for Israel's right to defend itself, granting Jerusalem the leeway it needed to win the war against Arafat's suicide bombers. (Try to imagine the outcry if Israel had entered Jenin on Clinton's watch.) Israel even hurried to finish up Operation Cast Lead in January 2009 on the last day of Bush's administration. It had good reason to do so. A Democrat was about to assume office.

* * * * *

All of which brings us to Barack Obama. In December 2008 Israel offered the Palestinians the two-state solution once again, including an unprecedented offer to absorb thousands of refugees. The Palestinians said no, made no concessions and offered no counter-terms.

Obama assumed office a month later. The Great Man determined that the real problem was - what else? - the settlements! He then took a position that was even more anti-Israel than the Palestinians had taken. Until then, the Palestinians accepted the idea that Israel could build in the three settlement blocs. Obama demanded that Israel freeze building everywhere, even in East Jerusalem. The peace process has been in a ditch ever since.

A personal note: I am embarrassed to admit it now, but I was a Democrat myself for almost twenty years. I once hosted an event for a Democratic candidate that raised $25,000. It was Bill Clinton and his treatment of Israel that cured me once and for all. I am now a Republican. And I have all the zeal of the converted.

In a democracy, you get the government you deserve. The Jewish people have long deserved better. This Tuesday, we have an opportunity to stand with those who have stood with us. We owe ourselves nothing less.

Uri Kaufman is the author of "Low Level Victory," scheduled for release early next year.