Well, listen, anyway, I can't seem to get some information I need to wrap this up. These things seem to either be "Not released" or "Not available." I'm sure it's just an oversight or glitch or something, so if you could you tell me where these things are I have them written down here somewhere -- oh wait. I'll just read it to you.
Could you please help me find these things, Sir?
1. Occidental College records -- Not released
2. Columbia College records -- Not released
3. Columbia Thesis paper -- "Not available"
4. Harvard College records -- Not released
5. Selective Service Registration -- Not released
6. Medical records -- Not released
7. Illinois State Senate schedule -- Not available
8. Your Illinois State Senate records -- Not available
9. Law practice client list -- Not released
10. Certified Copy of original Birth certificate -- Not released
11. Embossed, signed paper Certification of Live Birth -- Not released
12. Record of your baptism -- Not available
13. Why your wife, Michelle, can no longer practice law as an attorney? (Insurance Fraud?)
14. Why your wife has 22 assistants, when other First Ladies had one?
15. Why were you getting "foreign student aid" as a college student?
16. Which countries "passport" did you have when you visited Pakistan in 1981?
Oh and one more thing Mr. President, I can't seem to find any articles you published as editor of the Harvard Law Review, or as a Professor at the University of Chicago. Can you explain that to me, Sir? Oh, but hey -- listen! I know you're busy! If this is too much for you right now -- I mean -- tell you what. I'll come back tomorrow. Give you some time to get these things together, you know? I mean, I know you're busy. I'll just let myself out. I'll be back tomorrow. And the day after. . ...
What's that Mr. President? Who wants to know these things? We the People of the United States of America ! You know, the ones that vote.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Nation of Islam congressman in Indy opposed
The most important & least known House Race in America
America and indeed the world, anxiously awaits the outcome of the 2010 midterm elections. The political and social direction of the Republic is on the line. Republican versus Democrat, Conservative versus Liberal, RINO versus Tea Party and the beat goes on. Millions of dollars are flowing into campaign chests; miles of print espousing opinions grace the pages of newspapers, magazines and blogs; thousands of hours of programming on radio and television debate the issues, from the ridiculous to the sublime. Volunteers and professionals are burning up the phone lines and the postal delivery folks are bent over with the weight of direct mail appeals.
Meanwhile, the most important House race in the whole country is being totally ignored. A race which exemplifies the ying and the yang. A race which incorporates every exciting and essential element on the political radar screen. A race which will separate hacks from heroes, principle from pragmatism, love of country from lust for power. A race between the power of politicians and the power of the people.
Populist Republican, Dr. Marvin Scott is attempting to wrest the Indiana 7th District from the clutches of a liberal Democrat dynasty. Julia Carson was elected in 1996 and served until her death in 2007. Andre Carson, her grandson, was elected to serve the remainder of her term in a special election and was overwhelmingly reelected in 2008, thanks to the Barack Obama landslide.
Dr. Scott, a tenured professor of Sociology at Butler University, was the Republican nominee for Senate in 2004. He is an extraordinary example of the American Dream. Born to proud, but not formally educated parents in the segregated south, Dr. Scott learned to be a proud American. Robert and Gertrude Scott taught their seven children to appreciate what you have and strive to earn what you want. Three of their children earned PHd’s or finished all the requirements and one of their grandchildren was Flo-Jo, the Olympic champion.
Andre Carson voted 98.9% of the time with Speaker Nancy Pelosi. He has earned high marks from Organized Labor, Pro Choice organizations, Gun Control Groups, Muslim groups (he is one of two Muslims in the House), Homosexual support groups, Tax Increase lobbies, Arab & Anti Israel groups (Carson earned a 100% rating from the Arab American League) and the NAACP. Andre Carson is a proud member of the Progressive Caucus in Congress.
Marvin Scott is a Constitutional Conservative. He passionately believes that America is the land of opportunity. He is a fiscal and social conservative. He has never been embraced by the Republican power people but is loved by the Tea Party folks. Dr. Scott is a true gentleman, but not a coward. He gets standing ovations from the everyday folk and deafening silence from the DC insiders. His motto is “It is never right to do wrong, and it is never wrong to do right”. He publically commits to term limits and is an unabashed supporter of Israel.
This race is very winnable by Dr. Scott, because of his huge name recognition, the frustration with Andre Carson (he is the one who lied when he claimed the “N” word was used 15 times at a Tea Party rally in DC), the mood of the country, the unpopularity of President Obama, the changes in the District (only 25% black, only 53% Democrat), the fact that Marvin Scott is a black man so the “race” card is eliminated, the high unemployment rate (60+%) among black youth, the strong 2nd Amendment sentiment, the fact that Andre Carson voted for the Health Care Bill with its unconstitutional personal mandates and the publically funded abortion provisions, and Andre Carson’s condemnation of Israel in a letter signed by him and 53 other anti-Israel members of Congress. Andre Carson‘s personal relationship with the hateful Louis Farrakhan and Farrakhan’s endorsement of him, plus Carson’s sponsorship of the J Street Gala Dinner are very troubling for most citizens. 2010 brings with it photo ID requirements which will cut down on the aggressive cheating carried out in the past in this District. Andre Carson supports open borders, a path to citizenship for illegals and a weakened national defense. Dr. Marvin Scott believes in securing our borders, enforcing our laws and strengthening our National Defense.
The “Power” Republicans have done their best to discourage donors to Dr. Marvin Scott’s campaign. Congressmen Mike Pence and Dan Burton have been the notable exceptions. Insiders claim the district cannot be won, but ignore the fact that no Democrat has won the 7th in an off year election by more than 10,000 votes. The reality is, that Power Republicans don’t want to encourage Democrat turnout by backing a vigorous campaign. They have been cowed by the possibility of being called racists and they want a Republican who is a ring kisser. Dr. Scott is a happily married man with 4 children and he is allergic to chapstick.
Will this, the year of the people, end this progressive liberal dynasty?
Will the people’s frustration with RINO like positions and politicians explode at the ballot box? That is the question, you are the answer. Get informed, get involved, get Andre Carson out and Dr. Marvin Scott & the Constitution back in the United States House of Representatives.
America and indeed the world, anxiously awaits the outcome of the 2010 midterm elections. The political and social direction of the Republic is on the line. Republican versus Democrat, Conservative versus Liberal, RINO versus Tea Party and the beat goes on. Millions of dollars are flowing into campaign chests; miles of print espousing opinions grace the pages of newspapers, magazines and blogs; thousands of hours of programming on radio and television debate the issues, from the ridiculous to the sublime. Volunteers and professionals are burning up the phone lines and the postal delivery folks are bent over with the weight of direct mail appeals.
Meanwhile, the most important House race in the whole country is being totally ignored. A race which exemplifies the ying and the yang. A race which incorporates every exciting and essential element on the political radar screen. A race which will separate hacks from heroes, principle from pragmatism, love of country from lust for power. A race between the power of politicians and the power of the people.
Populist Republican, Dr. Marvin Scott is attempting to wrest the Indiana 7th District from the clutches of a liberal Democrat dynasty. Julia Carson was elected in 1996 and served until her death in 2007. Andre Carson, her grandson, was elected to serve the remainder of her term in a special election and was overwhelmingly reelected in 2008, thanks to the Barack Obama landslide.
Dr. Scott, a tenured professor of Sociology at Butler University, was the Republican nominee for Senate in 2004. He is an extraordinary example of the American Dream. Born to proud, but not formally educated parents in the segregated south, Dr. Scott learned to be a proud American. Robert and Gertrude Scott taught their seven children to appreciate what you have and strive to earn what you want. Three of their children earned PHd’s or finished all the requirements and one of their grandchildren was Flo-Jo, the Olympic champion.
Andre Carson voted 98.9% of the time with Speaker Nancy Pelosi. He has earned high marks from Organized Labor, Pro Choice organizations, Gun Control Groups, Muslim groups (he is one of two Muslims in the House), Homosexual support groups, Tax Increase lobbies, Arab & Anti Israel groups (Carson earned a 100% rating from the Arab American League) and the NAACP. Andre Carson is a proud member of the Progressive Caucus in Congress.
Marvin Scott is a Constitutional Conservative. He passionately believes that America is the land of opportunity. He is a fiscal and social conservative. He has never been embraced by the Republican power people but is loved by the Tea Party folks. Dr. Scott is a true gentleman, but not a coward. He gets standing ovations from the everyday folk and deafening silence from the DC insiders. His motto is “It is never right to do wrong, and it is never wrong to do right”. He publically commits to term limits and is an unabashed supporter of Israel.
This race is very winnable by Dr. Scott, because of his huge name recognition, the frustration with Andre Carson (he is the one who lied when he claimed the “N” word was used 15 times at a Tea Party rally in DC), the mood of the country, the unpopularity of President Obama, the changes in the District (only 25% black, only 53% Democrat), the fact that Marvin Scott is a black man so the “race” card is eliminated, the high unemployment rate (60+%) among black youth, the strong 2nd Amendment sentiment, the fact that Andre Carson voted for the Health Care Bill with its unconstitutional personal mandates and the publically funded abortion provisions, and Andre Carson’s condemnation of Israel in a letter signed by him and 53 other anti-Israel members of Congress. Andre Carson‘s personal relationship with the hateful Louis Farrakhan and Farrakhan’s endorsement of him, plus Carson’s sponsorship of the J Street Gala Dinner are very troubling for most citizens. 2010 brings with it photo ID requirements which will cut down on the aggressive cheating carried out in the past in this District. Andre Carson supports open borders, a path to citizenship for illegals and a weakened national defense. Dr. Marvin Scott believes in securing our borders, enforcing our laws and strengthening our National Defense.
The “Power” Republicans have done their best to discourage donors to Dr. Marvin Scott’s campaign. Congressmen Mike Pence and Dan Burton have been the notable exceptions. Insiders claim the district cannot be won, but ignore the fact that no Democrat has won the 7th in an off year election by more than 10,000 votes. The reality is, that Power Republicans don’t want to encourage Democrat turnout by backing a vigorous campaign. They have been cowed by the possibility of being called racists and they want a Republican who is a ring kisser. Dr. Scott is a happily married man with 4 children and he is allergic to chapstick.
Will this, the year of the people, end this progressive liberal dynasty?
Will the people’s frustration with RINO like positions and politicians explode at the ballot box? That is the question, you are the answer. Get informed, get involved, get Andre Carson out and Dr. Marvin Scott & the Constitution back in the United States House of Representatives.
Thursday, August 26, 2010
facism in the Executive branch?
Beverly Sandler (bevshoes1@yahoo.com) sent this content to you from the Arutz 7 website
Daily Israel Report
Subscribe (free)
Home News News Briefs Opinion Judaism Features Blogs Admin
Radio | Live TV Jukebox Israel Pics Services RSS Advertise
IRS Sued for Discrimination of Groups that Don't Toe BHO Line
Elul 16, 5770, 26 August 10 08:32
by by INN Staff
(Israelnationalnews.com)
Z Street, a pro-Israel non-profit corporation, filed a lawsuit in federal court Wednesday charging that the IRS violated the organization’s First Amendment rights. The suit was filed after Z Street was told by an IRS official that its application for tax-exempt status has been delayed because an IRS policy requires consideration of whether a group’s views on Israel differ from those of the current Administration.
“Not only is it patently un-American but it is also a clear violation of the First Amendment for a government agency to penalize an organization because of its political position on Israel or anything else,” said Z Street president Lori Lowenthal Marcus, a former First Amendment lawyer. “This situation is the same as if the government denied a driver’s license to people because they were Republicans or Democrats. It goes against everything for which our country stands.”
Z Street filed for tax-exempt status in January of this year and, despite having met all of the requirements for grant of this status, the application has been stalled. An IRS agent told Z Street’s lawyers that the application was delayed because of a Special Israel Policy that requires more intense scrutiny of organizations which have to do with Israel, in part to determine whether they espouse positions on Israel contrary to those of the current Administration.
Z Street is a Zionist organization that supports Israel’s right to refuse to negotiate with, make concessions to, or appease terrorists. Z Street’s positions on Israel and, in particular, on the Middle East “peace process” differ significantly from those espoused by the Obama administration.
If Z Street had tax-exempt status, its donors would be able to deduct contributions from their taxable income. The IRS's refusal to grant tax-exempt status to Z Street has inhibited the organization‘s fundraising efforts, and therefore impeded its ability to speak and to educate the public regarding the issues that are the focus and purpose of Z Street.
The lawsuit, Z Street v. Shulman, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, was filed on Wednesday in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Josh Nathan-Kazis of The Jewish Daily Forward, calling the group "hawkish", reported:
The 1983 U.S. Supreme Court decision in the case of Bob Jones University v. United States could be interpreted to deny nonprofit status to organizations that oppose established American foreign policy... It was written to bar tax exempt groups from participating in racial discrimination.
Legal experts were split on the question of longstanding foreign policy, such as America’s opposition to Jewish settlements in the West Bank, could fall within the realm of “public policy” as described in Bob Jones. All agreed, however, that the IRS had never used Bob Jones to deny tax-exempt status to nonprofits that oppose American foreign policy.
A July story in The New York Times drew attention to the issue of tax-exempt American organizations that support settlements in the West Bank.
Ben Smith of Politico.com, repeating the "hawkish" adjective, wrote:
IRS Agent Diane Gentry told the group's lawyer that the IRS is "carefully scrutinizing organizations that are in any way connected with Israel," the complaint, filed in federal district court in Pennsylvania, says. "Agent Gentry further stated to counsel for Z Street: 'these cases are being sent to a special unit in the D.C. office to determine whether the organization's activities contradict the Administration's public policies.'"
IRS spokesman Bruce Friedland responded: "The IRS, by law, cannot comment on specific charities or even confirm whether a specific exemption request exists."
The Forward report added that the IRS responded that reasons for delay could include other parties that file petitions against giving a group tax exempt status.
www.IsraelNationalNews.com
© Copyright IsraelNationalNews.com
Daily Israel Report
Subscribe (free)
Home News News Briefs Opinion Judaism Features Blogs Admin
Radio | Live TV Jukebox Israel Pics Services RSS Advertise
IRS Sued for Discrimination of Groups that Don't Toe BHO Line
Elul 16, 5770, 26 August 10 08:32
by by INN Staff
(Israelnationalnews.com)
Z Street, a pro-Israel non-profit corporation, filed a lawsuit in federal court Wednesday charging that the IRS violated the organization’s First Amendment rights. The suit was filed after Z Street was told by an IRS official that its application for tax-exempt status has been delayed because an IRS policy requires consideration of whether a group’s views on Israel differ from those of the current Administration.
“Not only is it patently un-American but it is also a clear violation of the First Amendment for a government agency to penalize an organization because of its political position on Israel or anything else,” said Z Street president Lori Lowenthal Marcus, a former First Amendment lawyer. “This situation is the same as if the government denied a driver’s license to people because they were Republicans or Democrats. It goes against everything for which our country stands.”
Z Street filed for tax-exempt status in January of this year and, despite having met all of the requirements for grant of this status, the application has been stalled. An IRS agent told Z Street’s lawyers that the application was delayed because of a Special Israel Policy that requires more intense scrutiny of organizations which have to do with Israel, in part to determine whether they espouse positions on Israel contrary to those of the current Administration.
Z Street is a Zionist organization that supports Israel’s right to refuse to negotiate with, make concessions to, or appease terrorists. Z Street’s positions on Israel and, in particular, on the Middle East “peace process” differ significantly from those espoused by the Obama administration.
If Z Street had tax-exempt status, its donors would be able to deduct contributions from their taxable income. The IRS's refusal to grant tax-exempt status to Z Street has inhibited the organization‘s fundraising efforts, and therefore impeded its ability to speak and to educate the public regarding the issues that are the focus and purpose of Z Street.
The lawsuit, Z Street v. Shulman, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, was filed on Wednesday in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Josh Nathan-Kazis of The Jewish Daily Forward, calling the group "hawkish", reported:
The 1983 U.S. Supreme Court decision in the case of Bob Jones University v. United States could be interpreted to deny nonprofit status to organizations that oppose established American foreign policy... It was written to bar tax exempt groups from participating in racial discrimination.
Legal experts were split on the question of longstanding foreign policy, such as America’s opposition to Jewish settlements in the West Bank, could fall within the realm of “public policy” as described in Bob Jones. All agreed, however, that the IRS had never used Bob Jones to deny tax-exempt status to nonprofits that oppose American foreign policy.
A July story in The New York Times drew attention to the issue of tax-exempt American organizations that support settlements in the West Bank.
Ben Smith of Politico.com, repeating the "hawkish" adjective, wrote:
IRS Agent Diane Gentry told the group's lawyer that the IRS is "carefully scrutinizing organizations that are in any way connected with Israel," the complaint, filed in federal district court in Pennsylvania, says. "Agent Gentry further stated to counsel for Z Street: 'these cases are being sent to a special unit in the D.C. office to determine whether the organization's activities contradict the Administration's public policies.'"
IRS spokesman Bruce Friedland responded: "The IRS, by law, cannot comment on specific charities or even confirm whether a specific exemption request exists."
The Forward report added that the IRS responded that reasons for delay could include other parties that file petitions against giving a group tax exempt status.
www.IsraelNationalNews.com
© Copyright IsraelNationalNews.com
obama ruining economy
.Job fears grip voters as Obama ratings crumble
Buzz up!132 votes Share
retweet
EmailPrint.. Play Video Barack Obama Video:Anti-Obama Booth In Mound Draws Cheers, Disgust WCCO Minneapolis .
Play Video Barack Obama Video:Spill panel probes Obama's plan to drill more AP .
Play Video Barack Obama Video:Democrat Says Joe Must Go FOX News .
By Richard Cowan Richard Cowan – Tue Aug 24, 4:03 pm ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – More Americans now disapprove of President Barack Obama than approve of him as high unemployment and government spending scare voters ahead of November's midterm elections, Reuters/Ipsos poll found on Tuesday.
In the latest grim news for Obama's Democrats, 72 percent of people said they were very worried about joblessness and 67 percent were very concerned about government spending.
The unemployment rate of 9.5 percent and the huge budget deficit are dragging down the Democrats and eating away at Obama's popularity only 20 months after he took office on a wave of hope that he could turnaround the economy.
Another bit of bad economic data arrived on Tuesday when the National Association of Realtors reported sales of existing homes plummeted in July to their slowest pace in 15 years.
Piling the pressure on Obama, the top Republican in the House of Representatives called on the administration's economic team to quit.
Obama's disapproval rating was 52 percent in Tuesday's poll, overtaking his approval rating for the first time in an Ipsos poll. Only 45 percent of people said they approved of the president's performance, down from 48 percent last month.
That number, coupled with a hearty 62 percent who think the country is going in the wrong direction, could spell trouble for Democrats, who control both chambers of Congress and the White House.
But despite the bad poll numbers, a non-partisan congressional body on Tuesday backed Democrats' claims that the massive stimulus package in 2009 kept the economy afloat.
House Republican leader John Boehner called for a fresh start on the economy. In a campaign-style speech, he urged Obama's top economic advisers to resign, saying, "It's time to put grown-ups in charge."
Buzz up!132 votes Share
retweet
EmailPrint.. Play Video Barack Obama Video:Anti-Obama Booth In Mound Draws Cheers, Disgust WCCO Minneapolis .
Play Video Barack Obama Video:Spill panel probes Obama's plan to drill more AP .
Play Video Barack Obama Video:Democrat Says Joe Must Go FOX News .
By Richard Cowan Richard Cowan – Tue Aug 24, 4:03 pm ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – More Americans now disapprove of President Barack Obama than approve of him as high unemployment and government spending scare voters ahead of November's midterm elections, Reuters/Ipsos poll found on Tuesday.
In the latest grim news for Obama's Democrats, 72 percent of people said they were very worried about joblessness and 67 percent were very concerned about government spending.
The unemployment rate of 9.5 percent and the huge budget deficit are dragging down the Democrats and eating away at Obama's popularity only 20 months after he took office on a wave of hope that he could turnaround the economy.
Another bit of bad economic data arrived on Tuesday when the National Association of Realtors reported sales of existing homes plummeted in July to their slowest pace in 15 years.
Piling the pressure on Obama, the top Republican in the House of Representatives called on the administration's economic team to quit.
Obama's disapproval rating was 52 percent in Tuesday's poll, overtaking his approval rating for the first time in an Ipsos poll. Only 45 percent of people said they approved of the president's performance, down from 48 percent last month.
That number, coupled with a hearty 62 percent who think the country is going in the wrong direction, could spell trouble for Democrats, who control both chambers of Congress and the White House.
But despite the bad poll numbers, a non-partisan congressional body on Tuesday backed Democrats' claims that the massive stimulus package in 2009 kept the economy afloat.
House Republican leader John Boehner called for a fresh start on the economy. In a campaign-style speech, he urged Obama's top economic advisers to resign, saying, "It's time to put grown-ups in charge."
Saturday, August 21, 2010
Obama changes hurt Jews most
Ed Lasky
I could also argue that much of the change that has occurred have a disparate and negative impact on Jews.
A few example: because Jews are among the highest earners on average, the increased taxes coming are going to penalize them. Because many Jews are doctors, ObamaCare will ultimately negatively affect them. Because many Jews own small businesses (because of a history of anti-Semitism), the changes that have happened and will be happening will cause havoc, along with the tax changes. Because many Jews are heavily invested in the stock market (partly a function of the higher earnings, partly an age demographic ), the market stall and the increased taxes on capital gains and dividends will not help. The railing against Wall Street and “fat cats” touches an area that has historically been associated with outbreaks of anti-Semitism. Jews save money for their kids-be it for college or inheritance (oh…and thanks Alexi for your administration of the 527 plans for my children) and these changes will not help in that area. Jews are charitable—and prospects of making deductions less tax-wise don’t help either. Jews are the oldest demographic in America-threats to Medicare (and concerns about their investments) are not cause for optimism. A lot of money is coming out of Medicare to fund Obamacare for far younger people. Medicare Advantage? Forget about it…
I could go on….but being taken for granted by either party (or by anyone) has risks. After all, the tone changed when prominent Democratic Jews started expressing their displeasure with policies coming out of the Oval Office as midterms loom. Coincidence?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/21/opinion/21blow.html?ref=opinion
Oy Vey, Obama
By CHARLES M. BLOW
Is President Obama good for the Jews? For more and more Jewish-Americans, the answer is no.
In a Pew Research Center report issued on Thursday and entitled “Growing Number of Americans Say Obama Is a Muslim” (tragic in its own right), there was another bit of bad news for Obama: the number of Jews who identify as Republican or as independents who lean Republican has increased by more than half since the year he was elected. At 33 percent it now stands at the highest level since the data have been kept. In 2008, the ratio of Democratic Jews to Republican Jews was far more than three to one. Now it’s less than two to one.
This is no doubt a reaction, at least in part, to the Obama administration having taken a hard rhetorical stance with Israel, while taking “special time and care on our relationship with the Muslim world,” as Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, put it in June. If that sounds like courtship, it is.
(It should be noted that the Pew poll was taken before Obama’s bold support for the right of Muslims to build a community center and mosque a few blocks north of ground zero.)
Some of the president’s most ardent critics and some of Israel’s staunchest American defenders — two groups that are by no means mutually exclusive — have seized on what they see as the administration’s unfair and unbalanced treatment of Israel and have taken their denunciations to the extremes.
In September 2009, Obama went before the United Nations and declared, “America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements.” It was a line that the president had used a few months earlier in a speech in Cairo, but this time it threw critics into a tizzy. John Bolton, an ambassador to the United Nations during George W. Bush’s administration, responded: “This is the most radical anti-Israel speech I can recall any president making.”
In March, while Vice President Joe Biden was visiting, Israel announced it would move ahead with plans to build housing in East Jerusalem. The administration was not amused. Biden condemned the decision as undermining “the trust that we need right now” in order to have profitable negotiations.
In other words, “You announce this now? You can’t be serious!”
In April, after President Obama urged Israel to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, Representative Eric Cantor, the House minority whip and the lone Jewish Republican in the chamber, lashed out: “The administration’s troubling policy of manufacturing fights with Israel to ingratiate itself with some in the Arab world is no way to advance the cause of Mideast peace.”
And, the Gaza flotilla incident in May that left nine people dead and drew international condemnation of Israeli tactics only added to the tensions.
The White House, feeling pressure over the developing rift, sought to mend fences in May through a series of meetings and statements, but as Helene Cooper reported in The Times, “It remains unclear whether Mr. Obama’s latest outreach will reassure American Jews and the general public in Israel, where Mr. Obama’s approval ratings have plummeted.” And, it’s still foggy.
When the president met in July at the White House with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, he stressed the United States’ unwavering support for Israel and his commitment to the “special bond” between the two nations.
Still that was not enough to quell the cries of those like Representative Mike Pence, the Republican Conference chairman who earlier this month told the Christian Broadcasting Network, “I believe the Obama administration is the most anti-Israel administration in the modern history of the state of Israel and our relationship with her.” The more extreme the statement the better I guess.
Fair or not, these criticisms are crystallizing into a shared belief among many: Obama is burning bridges with the Jewish community in order to build bridges to the Muslim world.
There is very little independent polling, aside from Pew’s party identification polling, to help us understand how American Jews see the president, his stance toward Israel and the political implications. So in that vacuum, pollsters with partisan leanings have been spinning their findings like dreidels.
In April, the Republican polling firm McLaughlin & Associates released a survey that they said showed that only 42 percent of American Jews would vote to re-elect President Obama. He captured 78 percent of the Jewish vote in 2008.
Recently, the democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg and the Israel Project, a nonprofit in Washington, conducted a poll that they said found American support of Israel was dropping like a rock.
Wherever the truth lies, it is fair to say that it doesn’t bode well for Obama. While Jews are only 2 percent of the United States population, their influence outweighs their proportion. Furthermore, in crucial battleground states like Florida, their vote is critical. Obama won Florida by 3 percentage points in 2008. Jews represented 4 percent of the overall vote in that state.
As Ed Koch, the former mayor of New York City, told Fox News in April, “I have been a supporter of President Obama and went to Florida for him, urged Jews all over the country to vote for him, saying that he would be just as good as John McCain on the security of Israel. I don’t think it’s true anymore.
I could also argue that much of the change that has occurred have a disparate and negative impact on Jews.
A few example: because Jews are among the highest earners on average, the increased taxes coming are going to penalize them. Because many Jews are doctors, ObamaCare will ultimately negatively affect them. Because many Jews own small businesses (because of a history of anti-Semitism), the changes that have happened and will be happening will cause havoc, along with the tax changes. Because many Jews are heavily invested in the stock market (partly a function of the higher earnings, partly an age demographic ), the market stall and the increased taxes on capital gains and dividends will not help. The railing against Wall Street and “fat cats” touches an area that has historically been associated with outbreaks of anti-Semitism. Jews save money for their kids-be it for college or inheritance (oh…and thanks Alexi for your administration of the 527 plans for my children) and these changes will not help in that area. Jews are charitable—and prospects of making deductions less tax-wise don’t help either. Jews are the oldest demographic in America-threats to Medicare (and concerns about their investments) are not cause for optimism. A lot of money is coming out of Medicare to fund Obamacare for far younger people. Medicare Advantage? Forget about it…
I could go on….but being taken for granted by either party (or by anyone) has risks. After all, the tone changed when prominent Democratic Jews started expressing their displeasure with policies coming out of the Oval Office as midterms loom. Coincidence?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/21/opinion/21blow.html?ref=opinion
Oy Vey, Obama
By CHARLES M. BLOW
Is President Obama good for the Jews? For more and more Jewish-Americans, the answer is no.
In a Pew Research Center report issued on Thursday and entitled “Growing Number of Americans Say Obama Is a Muslim” (tragic in its own right), there was another bit of bad news for Obama: the number of Jews who identify as Republican or as independents who lean Republican has increased by more than half since the year he was elected. At 33 percent it now stands at the highest level since the data have been kept. In 2008, the ratio of Democratic Jews to Republican Jews was far more than three to one. Now it’s less than two to one.
This is no doubt a reaction, at least in part, to the Obama administration having taken a hard rhetorical stance with Israel, while taking “special time and care on our relationship with the Muslim world,” as Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, put it in June. If that sounds like courtship, it is.
(It should be noted that the Pew poll was taken before Obama’s bold support for the right of Muslims to build a community center and mosque a few blocks north of ground zero.)
Some of the president’s most ardent critics and some of Israel’s staunchest American defenders — two groups that are by no means mutually exclusive — have seized on what they see as the administration’s unfair and unbalanced treatment of Israel and have taken their denunciations to the extremes.
In September 2009, Obama went before the United Nations and declared, “America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements.” It was a line that the president had used a few months earlier in a speech in Cairo, but this time it threw critics into a tizzy. John Bolton, an ambassador to the United Nations during George W. Bush’s administration, responded: “This is the most radical anti-Israel speech I can recall any president making.”
In March, while Vice President Joe Biden was visiting, Israel announced it would move ahead with plans to build housing in East Jerusalem. The administration was not amused. Biden condemned the decision as undermining “the trust that we need right now” in order to have profitable negotiations.
In other words, “You announce this now? You can’t be serious!”
In April, after President Obama urged Israel to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, Representative Eric Cantor, the House minority whip and the lone Jewish Republican in the chamber, lashed out: “The administration’s troubling policy of manufacturing fights with Israel to ingratiate itself with some in the Arab world is no way to advance the cause of Mideast peace.”
And, the Gaza flotilla incident in May that left nine people dead and drew international condemnation of Israeli tactics only added to the tensions.
The White House, feeling pressure over the developing rift, sought to mend fences in May through a series of meetings and statements, but as Helene Cooper reported in The Times, “It remains unclear whether Mr. Obama’s latest outreach will reassure American Jews and the general public in Israel, where Mr. Obama’s approval ratings have plummeted.” And, it’s still foggy.
When the president met in July at the White House with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, he stressed the United States’ unwavering support for Israel and his commitment to the “special bond” between the two nations.
Still that was not enough to quell the cries of those like Representative Mike Pence, the Republican Conference chairman who earlier this month told the Christian Broadcasting Network, “I believe the Obama administration is the most anti-Israel administration in the modern history of the state of Israel and our relationship with her.” The more extreme the statement the better I guess.
Fair or not, these criticisms are crystallizing into a shared belief among many: Obama is burning bridges with the Jewish community in order to build bridges to the Muslim world.
There is very little independent polling, aside from Pew’s party identification polling, to help us understand how American Jews see the president, his stance toward Israel and the political implications. So in that vacuum, pollsters with partisan leanings have been spinning their findings like dreidels.
In April, the Republican polling firm McLaughlin & Associates released a survey that they said showed that only 42 percent of American Jews would vote to re-elect President Obama. He captured 78 percent of the Jewish vote in 2008.
Recently, the democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg and the Israel Project, a nonprofit in Washington, conducted a poll that they said found American support of Israel was dropping like a rock.
Wherever the truth lies, it is fair to say that it doesn’t bode well for Obama. While Jews are only 2 percent of the United States population, their influence outweighs their proportion. Furthermore, in crucial battleground states like Florida, their vote is critical. Obama won Florida by 3 percentage points in 2008. Jews represented 4 percent of the overall vote in that state.
As Ed Koch, the former mayor of New York City, told Fox News in April, “I have been a supporter of President Obama and went to Florida for him, urged Jews all over the country to vote for him, saying that he would be just as good as John McCain on the security of Israel. I don’t think it’s true anymore.
Friday, August 20, 2010
Dems bankrupt us
Budget Analysts See 2010 Deficit at $1.3 Trillion
Thursday, 19 Aug 2010 10:27 AM Article Font Size
This year's federal deficit will exceed $1.3 trillion, Congress' official budget analysts projected Thursday in a report underscoring election year perils both parties face as they struggle to balance conflicting demands to trim budget shortfalls, spark the economy and cut taxes.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said this year's budget gap would be $71 billion less than last year's red ink, thanks to a reversal of recent trends that have seen years of steadily rising government spending and falling federal revenues.
Even so, that would leave this year's deficit as the second largest ever in dollars, trailing only last year's $1.4 trillion. To put those numbers in perspective, the shortfalls for 2009 and 2010 are each three times as big as the government's annual deficit had ever been previously.
The report immediately became fodder for partisan finger-pointing over the deficit, a concern of voters in the shadow of this fall's elections, which will determine control of Congress.
Thursday, 19 Aug 2010 10:27 AM Article Font Size
This year's federal deficit will exceed $1.3 trillion, Congress' official budget analysts projected Thursday in a report underscoring election year perils both parties face as they struggle to balance conflicting demands to trim budget shortfalls, spark the economy and cut taxes.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said this year's budget gap would be $71 billion less than last year's red ink, thanks to a reversal of recent trends that have seen years of steadily rising government spending and falling federal revenues.
Even so, that would leave this year's deficit as the second largest ever in dollars, trailing only last year's $1.4 trillion. To put those numbers in perspective, the shortfalls for 2009 and 2010 are each three times as big as the government's annual deficit had ever been previously.
The report immediately became fodder for partisan finger-pointing over the deficit, a concern of voters in the shadow of this fall's elections, which will determine control of Congress.
Sunday, August 15, 2010
Obama wants the mosque at ground zero
Obama Sides with Ground Zero Mosque Builders vs. Americans
Jennifer Rubin - 08.13.2010 - 8:50 PM
At the Iftar (end of Ramadan-day fast) shindig at the White House, Obama sided with CAIR, J Street, the ACLU, and the 29 percent of Americans who favor the Ground Zero mosque:
are you surprised? Moslem dad, grew up in Moslem school. thinks Nasa's mainn job is buttering up Moslems,
Jennifer Rubin - 08.13.2010 - 8:50 PM
At the Iftar (end of Ramadan-day fast) shindig at the White House, Obama sided with CAIR, J Street, the ACLU, and the 29 percent of Americans who favor the Ground Zero mosque:
are you surprised? Moslem dad, grew up in Moslem school. thinks Nasa's mainn job is buttering up Moslems,
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
