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."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
