It’s the Fat Cats’ Fault

October 16. 2011

By Nolan Finley

Big Gov’t vs. Big Biz in 2012

It’s the Fat Cats’ Fault

Next year’s presidential election won’t be about personalities — it’ll be a battle between Big Government and Big Business.

And whoever controls the finger of blame will likely come out on top.

President Barack Obama is standing on Al Gore’s old “People versus the Powerful” platform to convince voters the economic mess he’s presided over for nearly three years is not his fault — the culprits are the “Fat Cats” (his words), the CEOs, Wall Street brokers and wealthy layabouts who’ve stolen the jobs and paychecks of the middle class.

And although voters thought last year that it was smaller government they wanted, Obama’s pitch is that what they really need is a larger, more potent government to stand between them and the robber barons.

He’s getting a boost from the small but noisy Occupy Wall Street movement, which his media allies are covering 24/7. They’re only too eager to help him turn the conversation away from the failings of government and toward the failings of business.

This new “mad as hell” crowd has an edge to it, and lets the media get back to a story line it loves — that there are two Americas, one for the privileged and one for everyone else, and the lines never cross.

Voters usually reject this sort of class warfare.

But in persistently hard times, it’s easy to blame those with more power and more money.

To counter, Republicans have to play, “Who Wants to be a Millionaire?”

The answer is “everyone.”

Americans have a primal quest for wealth. It’s what made us the most prosperous people on Earth, and the most innovative.

Business makes millionaires, government doesn’t — except for the politicians and their friends who abuse the public trust.

Obama is offering policies that destroy wealth. There are fewer millionaires today than when he took office.

Republicans succeed if they make Americans believe again that they can roll the dice and win.

When people stop believing in their opportunity to hit the jackpot, they turn to the security of the nanny state.

The challenge for the GOP will be to remind voters of the everyday incompetence and inefficiency of government, and that every dollar it squanders comes out of their pockets.

Making government larger and more powerful means even more wasted dollars.

Republicans also have to make a stronger case for free markets and private initiative.

Explain basic economics. Profits aren’t evil; they keep factory and office doors open. (We learned the hard way in Michigan what happens when profits disappear.)

A corporation that pays less in taxes has more to spend on jobs and salaries.

And “fair share” doesn’t mean anywhere near the 50 percent of wealth Obama hopes to confiscate.

Big Business has its flaws and its scoundrels.

But stack them up next to those of Big Government and business wins in a landslide.

Nolan Finley is editorial page editor of The News.



Powered by Facebook Comments

Mitt Romney vs. Barack Obama on Foreign Policy and Ties to Israel

The Jewish Press

Oct 16 2011

Mitt Romney vs. Barack Obama on Foreign Policy and Ties to Israel

In the first major foreign policy speech of his presidential campaign, Mitt Romney said he would increase defense assistance to Israel, raise the U.S. military profile near Iran and recognize Israel as a Jewish state. Romney, the former Massachusetts governor and frontrunner for the Republican nomination, delivered the speech last Friday at The Citadel, a military college in South Carolina – a key early primary state he initially was given little chance of winning.

Now, with Texas Governor Rick Perry’s campaign in the doldrums, Romney is making forays into the state. Another sign of Romney’s growing confidence is that he departed from his signature issue of economic competence to concentrate on foreign policy in his speech. Romney’s address demonstrated the extent to which Israel has become a consensus issue for the overwhelming majority of the Republican Party and nearly all its presidential candidates.

Romney promised his audience that as president he would restore the United States to its position as undisputed world leader by rebuilding the sources of American strength: “a strong economy, a strong defense, and the enduring strength of our values.”Obama, argued Romney, had permitted all three of these sources to atrophy. Despite America’s weakened economic position, he said, America under a President Romney would not heed the isolationist siren nor would it seek refuge in a balance of power system where the United States is merely one player. “I will not surrender America’s role in the world. This is very simple: If you do not want America to be the strongest nation on Earth, I am not your president. You have that president today.”

Romney hammered Obama for appearing to accommodate America’s rivals while displaying coolness to allies. “Our friends and allies must have no doubts about where we stand,” he said. “And neither should our rivals.” Romney returned to this theme later in his address:  ” I will bolster and repair our alliances. Our friends should never fear that we will not stand by them in an hour of need. I will reaffirm as a vital national interest Israel’s existence as a Jewish state. I will count as dear our special relationship with the United Kingdom.”

Administration spokesmen note that the Obama and Netanyahu governments have smoothed relations in recent months and that Israeli officials credit the administration with tightening defense ties and backing Israel at the United Nations. Obama also refers to Israel as a Jewish state, though he has not issued a formal declaration of such recognition.

Romney raised the subject of Israel repeatedly in his address, starting with the foreign policy hazards he saw facing the U.S. in the immediate future. The first problem he mentioned was the threat posed by a nuclear Iran, and he suggested Israel might be further isolated by 2015 if Obama remains in office. “Will Iran be a fully activated nuclear weapons state, threatening its neighbors, dominating the world’s oil supply with a stranglehold on the Strait of Hormuz?” he asked.

“In the hands of the ayatollahs, a nuclear Iran is nothing less than an existential threat to Israel. Iran’s suicidal fanatics could blackmail the world. By 2015, will Israel be even more isolated by a hostile international community? Will those who seek Israel’s destruction feel emboldened by American ambivalence? Will Israel have been forced to fight yet another war to protect its citizens and its right to exist?”

Romney said that as president he would “enhance our deterrent against the Iranian regime by ordering the regular presence of aircraft carrier task forces, one in the Eastern Mediterranean and one in the Persian Gulf region. I will begin discussions with Israel to increase the level of our military assistance and coordination. And I will again reiterate that Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon is unacceptable.” Romney said those “who seek Israel’s destruction” feel emboldened by American ambivalence and this might force Israel into fighting another war for its existence.

Romney pledged to help transform the UN and other international bodies that have become “forums for the tantrums of tyrants and the airing of the world’s most ancient of prejudices: anti-Semitism.” He also said he would centralize U.S. Middle East policy to ensure “that the Arab Spring does not fade into a long winter.”

The speech came a day after Romney published a list of his foreign policy advisers, including many who have been active in or are close to the pro-Israel community. Nearly all of Romney’s 22 special advisers held senior defense, diplomacy or intelligence positions in the administration of George W. Bush, including former homeland security secretary Michael Chertoff and former undersecretaries of defense Eric Edelman and Dov Zakheim.



Powered by Facebook Comments

A budget cut we cannot afford – “Sequestration”, an ugly word.


Weekly Standard, OCT 10, 2011
Among the many shortcomings of the Budget Control Act and its spawn, the “Super Committee,” is that the threat of a sequestration “nuclear option”—in which some $600 billion would be cut automatically from national security accounts (to my mind, the brain child of a president who has never had our national security as a consideration – jsk) if congressmen do not find savings elsewhere—diverts attention from the damage the law has done already to America’s military.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey have been quick off the mark in pointing out that sequestration would be “unacceptable” and “very high risk.” Various military service leaders have said that, if sequestration does come to pass, the country would have to “rethink” its entire military strategy. But the corollary to such criticism has been that the cuts already in law, though painful, can be “managed.” The Air Force’s second-ranking general told the House Armed Services Committee that “we will not go hollow” despite the $400 billion cut provided in the Budget Control Act.

But there’s good reason to wonder whether this is right. To begin with, the size of the current cut has grown. Last week Reuters reported that the level of defense reductions has increased to $489 billion, after the Obama administration decided to exempt veterans’ benefits from any cuts whatsoever. The White House is making a rather predictable political judgment that cutting Veterans budgets would cause them more pain than gutting defense budgets.

A better understanding of how the military is already being weakened can be found in a memo prepared for House Armed Services Committee chairman Buck McKeon. Although most news reports about the memo focused on the deep, indeed shocking, cuts in force structure that may result from sequestration, no less important was the memo’s accounting of the long-term effect on the military of current funding under the Budget Control Act.

Consider the personnel strength of the Army and Marine Corps. Even with 771,400 soldiers and Marines on active duty, both services remain stretched well beyond their limits. Based on current funding, the committee estimates that end-strength will fall to 654,000—smaller than pre-9/11 levels. Similarly, the Navy could slip to something on the order of 260 vessels—more than 50 ships below what the Navy consistently has argued it needs to carry out the country’s national security strategy. As for the Air Force, in 2000, it was flying more than 3,600 fighters; with cuts mandated by the Budget Control Act, that number may drop to less than 1,740.

The McKeon memo does not specify with equal precision the budget’s effects on future weapons programs, but there’s no reason to think such effects won’t be commensurate to the service cuts. The committee is correct to point out that every modernization program is “at risk”; the only real question is the level of risk. We are told that sequestration will create “unacceptable” risk, but because the Pentagon has yet to fully reckon the consequences of the current cuts, or even to reckon their overall size, there’s no way of knowing how much damage has already been done. So the service chiefs’ assurances that all is well should be treated with a heavy dose of skepticism.

The real problem is not the mechanism of sequestration, brutal though it may be. The fact is that the United States has been in an extended “defense drawdown” since the end of the Cold War, reaping substantial “peace dividends” throughout the Clinton years, during the Obama years, and now under the Budget Control Act. Indeed, more than $800 billion has been cut from planned spending in just the past three years. It’s time to say “enough” and to refuse not only sequestration but also a deal that avoids automatic reductions by substituting “just” a couple of hundred billion more in defense cuts. These are “savings” the nation cannot afford.



Powered by Facebook Comments

Honor Killings right here in the US!!

Have the Arabs learned about US Payola Corruption or Lobbying or Political Correctness or is it Self-Delusion or  Fear or What?

October 5, 2011 | Filed under: Florida Review

By Javier Manjarres and Pamela Geller (AtlasShrugs)


The abhorrent practice of ‘honor killings’ by radical Islamists beholden to the precepts of Sharia law is going on right here in the United States– some say that these killings are becoming more prevalent, although no statistics for such killings are recorded.  Unfortunately, political correctness and fear of the “Muslim street” here in America are restraining not only the media from accurately reporting on these cases, but law enforcement as well from aggressively investigating these cases as well as identifying that these murders are indeed “honor killings”.  One such case that appears to have been grossly mischaracterized and likely was an honor killing involves the death of Fatima Abdallah from Tampa, FL.

Abdallah was found dead in in the home of her brother, Muhammad Abdullah Hmeid on August 17th, 2009.  The Tampa Medical Examiner’s Office determined that the cause of death was that the “Decedent fell and struck her head,” and ruled the death to be accidental.

Subsequent to this finding, the Tampa Medical Examiner’s Office has come under fire from critics who charge that the office may be attempting to quash any further questioning of the Office’s determination which ruled Abdallah’s death to be an accidental death- possibly done out of fear of Muslim reprisal. Tampa Police Crime Scene Technician Shelby Garman requested that her name be removed from the Tampa Police Department GO report because of “fear of Muslim reprisal.”

The Tampa Police Department and the Medical Examiners Office both concluded that Abdallah died by  banging her own head against a coffee table repeatedly- yes, you read that right.  A member of Tampa Rescue called the Tampa Police’s explanation “illogical” and reported that Abdallah appeared to have been badly beaten.  What’s more, there was a history of abuse against Abdallah by certain members of her family, and she was quoted before her death by a neighbor who said that Abdallah’s brother did “unspeakable things to her.”

The Florida Family Association took note of this case early on and ultimately hired its own independent private investigator who raised a major red flag about the investigation.

“There is a glaring absence of any suspicion, from either report (TPD and ME reports), that the decedent could have possibly been a victim of an assault that eventually caused her death.” – Prestige Investigations, Inc. report on the death of Fatima Abdallah 

If Florida law enforcement agencies are reluctant to investigate and aggressively pursue charges in the context of honor killings for fear of reprisal, it means that we are effectively being governed by the vile precepts of Sharia that command these honor killings.  Our communities should stand united, break through the silent complicity of family members that too often attends these killings, and pursue justice.

Attorney General Pam Bondi’s attention was also solicited on this case, and her office issued the following reply-

We understand that you are requesting an investigation of “the Tampa Police Department and Hillsborough County Medical Examiner’s office.”  If you are requesting an outside investigation of local officials, you may wish to contact the Governor’s Office.  The Governor has the power to appoint what is known as a special prosecutor to investigate criminal allegations outside a state attorney’s normal circuit when there are concerns about possible conflicts of interest.  The Governor may also direct the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) to perform special investigations and investigations on public officials and agencies. 

 Upon reviewing the crime scene investitgation images, it was obvious the injuries Abdallah sustained to her face and head, not to mention the broken rib(s) that was not a ‘suicide-by-coffee-table’, but a murder case that needs to be reopened. Also in reviewing the notes and documents regarding the case, it was also troubling to learn that the of the 5 family members present, it took all of them 2 1/2 hours before they called 911, and then gave conflicting stories as to what happened to Fatima.

With all of the evidence in the case pointing towards murder and not towards an accident or suicide, pressure must be brought on Florida authorities to revisit the determination that he 48 year-old Abballahs’ death was an “accidental suicide” and to bring the perpetrators of this crime to justice.  As it presently stands, this case can only be reopened by Governor Rick Scott via a special prosecutor.  We strongly urge Governor Scott to review this case and order an investigation into the highly questionable conclusions that have been reached thus far by the various branches of Florida law enforcement.



Powered by Facebook Comments

A pact signed in Jewish blood

October 13, 2011
No one denies the long suffering of the Schalit family. Noam and Aviva Schalit and their relatives have endured five years and four months of uninterrupted anguish since their son St.-Sgt. Gilad Schalit was abducted from his army post by Palestinian terrorists and spirited to Gaza in June 2006. Since then, aside from one letter and one videotaped message, they have received no signs of life from their soldier son.
There is not a Jewish household in Israel that doesn’t empathize with their suffering. It isn’t simply that most Israelis serve in the IDF and expect their children to serve in the IDF. It isn’t just that it could happen to any of our families. As Jews, the concept of mutual responsibility, that we are all a big family and share a common fate, is ingrained in our collective consciousness. And so, at a deep level, the Schalit family’s suffering is our collective suffering.victims of Arab terror.jpg
And yet, and yet, freedom exacts its price. The cause of freedom for the Jewish people as a whole exacts a greater sacrifice from some families than from others. Sometimes, that sacrifice is made willingly, as in the case of the Netanyahu family. Prof. Benzion and Tzilla Netanyahu raised their three sons to be warriors in the fight for Jewish liberty. And all three of their sons served in an elite commando unit.
Their eldest son Yonatan had the privilege of commanding the unit and of leading Israeli commandos in the heroic raid to free Jewish hostages held by the PLO in Entebbe.There, on July 4, 1976, Yonatan and his family made the ultimate sacrifice for the freedom of the Jewish people. Yonatan was killed in action. His parents and brothers were left to mourn and miss him for the rest of their lives. And yet, the Netanyahu family’s sacrifice was a product of a previous decision to fight on the front lines of the war to preserve Jewish freedom.
Sometimes, the sacrifice is made less willingly. Since Israel allowed the PLO and its terror armies to move their (useless, ineffective and defeated)  bases from Tunis to Judea, Samaria and Gaza in 1994, nearly 2,000 Israeli families have involuntarily paid the ultimate price for the freedom of the Jewish people. Our freedom angers our Palestinian neighbors so much that they have decided that all Israelis should die.
For instance Ruth Peled, 56, and her 14-month-old granddaughter, Sinai Keinan, did not volunteer to make the ultimate sacrifice for the freedom of the Jewish people when they were murdered by a Palestinian suicide bomber as they sat in an ice cream parlor in Petah Tikva in May 2002. And five-year-old Gal Eisenman and her grandmother Noa Alon, 60, weren’t planning on giving their lives for the greater good when they, together with five others, were blown to smithereens by Palestinian terrorists in June 2002 while they were waiting for a bus in Jerusalem. Their mothers and daughters, Chen Keinan and Pnina Eisenman, had not signed up for the prospect of watching their mothers and daughters incinerated before their eyes. They did not volunteer to become bereaved mothers and orphaned daughters simultaneously.
The lives of the victims of Arab terror were stolen from their families simply because they lived and were Jews in Israel. And in the cases of the Keinan, Peled, Alon and Eisenman families, as in thousands of others, the murderers were the direct and indirect beneficiaries of terrorists-for-hostages swaps like the deal that Yonatan Netanyahu’s brother, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, made this week with Hamas to secure the release of Gilad Schalit.
The deal that Netanyahu has agreed to is signed with the blood of the past victims and future victims of the terrorists he is letting go. No amount of rationalization by Netanyahu, his cheerleaders in the demented mass media, and by the defeatist, apparently incompetent heads of the Shin Bet, Mossad and IDF can dent the facts. IT IS a statistical certainty that the release of 1,027 terrorists for Schalit will lead to the murder of untold numbers of Israelis. It has happened every single time that these blood ransoms have been paid. It will happen now.
Untold numbers of Israelis who are now sitting in their succas and celebrating Jewish freedom, who are driving in their cars, who are standing on line at the bank, who are sitting in their nursery school classrooms painting pictures of Torah scrolls for Simhat Torah will be killed for being Jewish while in Israel because Netanyahu has made this deal. The unrelenting pain of their families, left to cope with their absence, will be unimaginable.This is a simple fact and it is beyond dispute.
It is also beyond dispute that untold numbers of IDF soldiers and officers will be abducted and held hostage. Soldiers now training for war or scrubbing the floors of their barracks, or sitting at a pub with their friends on holiday leave will one day find themselves in a dungeon in Gaza or Sinai or Lebanon undergoing unspeakable mental and physical torture for years. Their families will suffer inhuman agony. The only thing we don’t know about these future victims is their names. But we know what will become of them as surely as we know that night follows day.
Netanyahu has proven once again that taking IDF soldiers hostage is a sure bet for our Palestinian neighbors. They can murder the next batch of Sinais and Gals, Noas and Ruths. They can kill thousands of them. And they can do so knowing all along that all they need to do to win immunity for their killers is kidnap a single IDF soldier.
There is no downside to this situation for those who believe all Jews should die. In his public statement on the Schalit deal Tuesday night, Netanyahu, like his newfound groupies in the media, invoked the Jewish tradition of pidyon shevuim, or the redemption of captives. But the Talmudic writ is not unconditional. The rabbinic sages were very clear. The ransom to be paid cannot involve the murder of other Jews. This deal – like its predecessors – is not in line with Jewish tradition. It stands in opposition to Jewish tradition. Even in our darkest hours of powerlessness in the ghettos and the pales of exile, our leaders did not agree to pay for a life with other life. Judaism has always rejected human sacrifice.
The real question here is after five years and four months in which Schalit has been held hostage and two-and-a-half years into Netanyahu’s current tenure as prime minister, why has the deal been concluded now? What has changed? The answer is that very little has changed on Netanyahu’s part. After assuming office, Netanyahu essentially accepted the contours of the abysmal agreement he has now signed in Jewish blood.
Initially, there was a political rationale for his morally and strategically perverse position. He had Defense Minister Ehud Barak and the Labor Party to consider. Supporting this deal was one of the many abject prices that Netanyahu was expected to pay to keep Labor and Barak in his coalition. But this rationale ended with Barak’s resignation from the Labor Party in January. Since then, Barak and his colleagues who joined him in leaving Labor have had no political leverage over Netanyahu. They have nowhere to go. Their political life is wholly dependent on their membership in Netanyahu’s government. He doesn’t need to pay any price for their loyalty.
So Netanyahu’s decision to sign the deal with Hamas lacks any political rationale. (as if such a position would ever have a moral rationale) WHAT HAS really changed since the deal was first put on the table two years ago is Hamas’s position. Since the Syrian people began to rise up against the regime of Hamas’s patron and protector President Bashar Assad, Hamas’s leaders, who have been headquartered in Syria since 1998, have been looking for a way to leave. Their Muslim Brotherhood brethren are leading forces in the Western-backed Syrian opposition.
Hamas’s leaders do not want to be identified with the Brotherhood’s oppressor. With the Egyptian military junta now openly massacring Christians, and with the Muslim Brotherhood rapidly becoming the dominant political force in the country, Egypt has become a far more suitable home for Hamas. But for the past several months, Hamas leaders in Damascus have faced a dilemma. If they stay in Syria, they lose credibility. If they leave, they expose themselves to Israel.
According to Channel 2, in exchange for Schalit, beyond releasing a thousand murderers, Netanyahu agreed to give safe passage to Hamas’s leaders decamping to Egypt. What this means is that this deal is even worse for Israel than it looks on the surface. Not only is Israel guaranteeing a reinvigoration of the Palestinian terror war against its civilians by freeing the most experienced terrorists in Palestinian society, and doing so at a time when the terror war itself is gradually escalating. Israel is squandering the opportunity to either decapitate Hamas by killing its leaders in transit, or to weaken the group by forcing its leaders to go down with Assad in Syria.
At best, Netanyahu comes out of this deal looking like a weak leader who is manipulated by and beholden to Israel’s radical, surrender-crazed media. To their eternal shame, the media have been waging a five-year campaign to force Israel’s leaders to capitulate to Hamas. At worst, this deal exposes Netanyahu as a morally challenged, strategically irresponsible and foolish, opportunistic politician.
What Israel needs is a leader with the courage of one writer’s convictions. Back in 1995, that writer wrote: “The release of convicted terrorists before they have served their full sentences seems like an easy and tempting way of defusing blackmail situations in which innocent people may lose their lives, but its utility is momentary at best. “Prisoner releases only embolden terrorists by giving them the feeling that even if they are caught, their punishment will be brief. Worse, by leading terrorists to think such demands are likely to be met, they encourage precisely the terrorist blackmail they are supposed to defuse.”
The writer of those lines was then-opposition leader Binyamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu wrote those lines in his book, Fighting Terrorism: How Democracies Can Defeat Domestic and International Terrorists. Israel needs that Netanyahu to lead it. But in the face of the current Netanyahu’s abject surrender to terrorism, apparently he is gone.
Originally published in The Jerusalem Post. 



Powered by Facebook Comments

Herman Cain not Black enough for Al Sharpton


By Conservative Byte

October 9, 2011

Rev. Al Sharpton said Friday that no matter how “black” presidential candidate Herman Cain is, his conservative views are fundamentally at odds with the rest of the black community — and white people only like him because he says what they want to hear. Speaking on his radio program with Professor Karen Hunter — the same person who accused the Associated Press of racism for dropping the g’s in its reporting of a President Barack Obama speech — Sharpton essentially accused Cain of forgetting his roots when it comes to his politics.

“How could anyone in their right mind — they grew up in the south and saw what they saw — and act like everyone that is unemployed and that is not rich did it to themselves?” Sharpton said. “So I would assume he is either socially ignorant or playing games to get votes, that he couldn’t possibly have grown up and come to that conclusion unless he was one or the other.”

Video of Al Sharpton explaining Cain’s lack of Blackness




Powered by Facebook Comments

Democratic Party running scared – Are Florida Jews finally escaping?

Joe Biden stepped forward as a guest and featured speaker at the Boca Raton mansion of former Democrat congressman Ron Klein. The Democratic Party came out in force to the closed door, no press invited event.  Included with Biden were:

Ron Klein, former Democratic Congressman, roundly defeated November, 2010, against all odds, in a predominantly Jewish district, by upcoming Congressional star, Republican Alan West. One voter wrote at the time, “I’m a blue-dog Democrat who expected to vote for Klein. But, his immediate and then relentless negative campaigning turned me off. West  campaigned with dignity and addressed the issues. Klein underestimated the intelligence of voters.

Robert Wexler, former seven term Congressman who “curiously” resigned from the Congress, October 14, 2009 to accept a lucrative job with a far left multi-millionaire as his President of the S. Daniel Abraham Center for Peace. The institute he’s joining is, as the Jewish Telegraphic Agency noted at the time, kind of “moribund.” It was founded by Slim Fast magnate, S. Daniel Abraham but hasn’t really done much over the past eight years.

The Center has evidently become more active with Wexler’s arrival, honoring at a dinner, September 10, 2010, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas,  the present leader of the PLO and protege of Yasir Arafat; and mastermind of the Munich Massacre which murdered Jewish athletes at the Olympic games; and author of a thesis to prove that the Holocaust never happened!

Also, of interest, found on the S. Daniel Abraham Center for Peace web site, were maps and diagrams describing the numbers of Israeli settlers that would need to be evacuated in each “peace” land giveaway scenario, varies between roughly 70,000 (under the 7% alternative) and 165,000 (under the  1.8% alternative).  

(This is just what the Israelis need for “Peace” – Shades of the Gaza forced withdrawal. From under what rock do these “Peace” advocates crawl?)

The organizer of the event was Debbie Wasserman Schultz – Chair of the Democratic National Committee and outspoken, frequently factually incorrect and super partisan mouthpiece for Barack Obama,  who recently, on TV September 25, 2011, claimed:

“We’re (our economy) is no longer dropping like a rock. Now we are moving forward. We’ve had 18 straight months of job growth, added 2.4 million jobs to the private sector, month after month, passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, saved the American automobile industry, which every Republican candidate for president would have let go down the tubes.”

The facts are considerably different, as stated by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis: “ During Obama’s presidency the annualized growth in the real Gross Domestic Product peaked at 3.9 percent in the first quarter of 2010. By the first two quarters of this year, it had dropped to 0.4 percent and 1.0 percent, respectively. Republican National Chairman, Priebus, in addition, cited the 9.1 percent national unemployment rate (2.4 million people unemployed) and the huge increase in the national debt.

Wasserman Schultz is also a founder and  supporter, along with Robert Wexler, of notoriously anti-Israel Washington based lobbying group called JStreet.

Michael Oren, the Israeli ambassador to the United States, blasted J Street, saying the organization was “fooling around with the lives of 7 million people (Israelis).” According to an article in The Jewish Daily Forward, Oren described the left-wing group as “a unique problem in that it not only opposes one policy of one Israel government, it opposes all positions of all Israeli governments. It’s significantly out of the mainstream.”

The visiting fireman for the Democratic Party, VP Joe Biden, is known for his recent vicious, orchestrated attack on Israel when he visited there earlier this year. The  recent event at Ron Klein’s mansion was a closed one (why?),  during which he met with at least 15 local rabbis chosen, we must assume, for their political leanings. Strange, that only two among them, had their names   revealed  to the press to this date – Rabbis Scheiner and Kurtz.

We’d all like to know just who those other invisible rabbis were and why they did not come out and identify themselves as part of what appears to have been a  political brainwashing meeting on their home turf? Aren’t the dues paying members of their synagogues entitled to know of their political activities while on the payroll of 501c3 institutions? After all, Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who also heads the Democrat National Committee, as well as being a J Street heavy, was the coordinator for the event.

What other Democrat big-wigs were in attendance? Any Republicans? This was not a “Getting to know you” event. Were they given crib sheets to use during their Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur  services to their captive audiences? Were they all supportive of Obama’s open dislike for Israel? This report below, and others do not mention any rebuke of the VP for his administration’s hostility toward Israel.

Why did none of these “leaders” stand up and speak out in support of their people? What opposition was there to having our country abandon Israel? There are no reports of Biden having curve ball questions thrown at him. Did all of these rabbis have stars in their eyes having the honor of meeting the guy who was sent to sell them a dangerous bill of goods? With so many questions going unanswered it’s logical for us to speculate and draw our own conclusions.

From: and other Internet sources.

Compiled by Jerome S. Kaufman

Reader Comments:

I am not Jewish, but all my adult life I’ve identified with Jews and Israel.
   Your “Running Scared” commentary gives me hope that Jews (not just in Florida, but across the country) will wake up and realize that Obama is NOT their friend.  From the very beginning, he has telegraphed his intent to fray the alliance the U.S. has always had with Israel.  He worshipped at the feet of Rev. Wright, a vicious anti-Semite.  Are we to believe that none of the vitriol rubbed off on him?  And his first major address (given in Cairo, not exactly a friend of the U.S.) and announced his primary foreign relations mission would be to “reach out to the Muslim community”.  He had to know he couldn’t do that and still maintain the close ties to Israel.  He can’t have it both ways.  Islam will not permit that.
  I know that the Jewish community has traditionally identified themselves with Democrats.  But Obama is not a traditional Democrat.  In spite of his denials, he leans toward Socialism.  If he is re-elected, with nothing to lose, he will be much more open in his Socialist leanings, both idealogical and policies.  And, also with nothing to lose, he will throw Israel under the bus.  I sincerely hope the Jews of America can see that.
Frances Haase
Tucson, AZ
Hi Jerome,

Great article…I am going to a dinner for Allan West in a week or so in LA, but no doubt he is on your mailing list to receive this piece.  I will get it to him also.

My best



Powered by Facebook Comments

Obama’s Favorite Menagerie of Malcontents

(Anything that will break down the basic fabric of American society and turn us into the Third World nation – The Dreams of his malcontent father and now, the dreams of the malcontent son) jsk

Can’t wait for Occupy Detroit

Obama’s Favorite Menagerie of Malcontents

By Nolan Finley

I can’t wait for the menagerie of malcontents who call themselves Occupy Wall Street to arrive in Detroit and other mainstream American cities. It will be good for real Americans to get a look at the folks President Barack Obama says represent their frustration with the condition of the country.

(Of  course, Herman Cain had the best line, “If they are so discontented, why don’t they go occupy the White House where the main perpetrator lives?”)

The protest movement that started in New York’s financial district several weeks ago with a couple hundred enthusiastic and unfocused shouters has grown to a few thousand, and now is vowing to take its show on the road. They’re expected in Detroit near month’s end.

Occupy Wall Street’s main objective, from what I can make out from the inchoate signage, is the destruction of capitalism (a goal to which Obama can relate), although on a whim they can switch to global warming, medical marijuana or any number of other pet causes dear to the disaffected Left.

Clearly, they’re angry with America, resent its founding values and would like to see the fat cats who run the place boiled in oil. Or at least that’s what they’re Twittering. Obama, asked about the budding movement last week, said he “sympathized” with Occupy Wall Street — not surprising, since they share a donor base.

And he opined that they are speaking for the great body of Americans who resent that some people have nice stuff and others don’t, and are counting on him to play Robin Hood. It’s odd that such a small and predictable group could grab the president’s attention.

He didn’t seem to hear anything of value when tens of thousands of tea partiers were pouring into the streets to protest exploding deficits and Washington’s fiscal recklessness. He certainly didn’t sympathize with those Americans. Nor did he accept that they represented the country’s broader discontent.

And while the president and his media horde heard every whisper from a tea party rally that sounded like a threat or suggested racist undertones, they seem blissfully ignorant of the vicious and hateful side of Occupy Wall Street. This is far from a peaceful protest. Cops in New York are arresting the increasingly violent activists by the hundreds.

Videos have caught incidents of Jewish passers-by being taunted by the protesters — of course, it’s a quick step from attacking financial institutions to indulging anti-Semitism. State lawmakers in New York have received emails reportedly connected to Occupy Wall Street containing this cheery call to action: “It’s time to kill the wealthy.”

I haven’t taken a poll, but my hunch is more Americans relate to “cut the spending” than to “kill the wealthy.” That’s why I’m eager to see this freak show arrive in Detroit. It’ll be informative for voters to compare the American protesters Barack Obama sympathizes with to those he despises.

Nolan Finley is editorial page editor of The Detroit News. 




Powered by Facebook Comments

Dying as a result of destructive misconceptions


Dying as a result of destructive misconceptions

By Moshe Feiglin
The Jewish Press
Posted Sep 14 2011

The frustration that grasped me over Shabbat reminded me of the man who told me how, at his bar mitzvah, ghosts suddenly entered the synagogue in Budapest. It was scary, with a stench of smoke and death. The ghost ascended to the stage of the synagogue and began to shout, ‘Jews, I have escaped Auschwitz to warn you that they will burn you. Run away now!’ “

“The synagogue managers,” the man continued, “dragged him off the stage and threw him out of the synagogue. I was sitting next to my father, in an aisle seat, and the man touched me. Until this very day, I can remember his smell. One month later, I was in Auschwitz.”

That is what happens when the public is not willing to deal with the significance of what it hears. That is what happens when leadership is captive to the existing pre-conceptions. No facts, proofs or evidence will help. They will not listen to you. They will throw you out of the synagogue, they will say that you are an extremist and are crazy. They will do anything to save themselves from dealing with the significance of what you are saying.

I didn’t really want to write about what is happening in Israel’s south as a direct result of the Gaza withdrawal and an ongoing horrendous government misconceptions. What can I say, “I told you so?” There is nothing taking place now that I have not warned about in tens of columns. What good will come out of writing the same things again? Why should anybody listen now?

What can I write? Blame Begin, who surrendered the Sinai desert? Blame Rabin and Peres, who surrendered Gaza and injected Arafat’s army of terrorists into its streets and alleys? Or blame Sharon, who destroyed Gush Katif?

I hear the “experts” on the radio. The broadcasters are not interviewing those who tried to warn us. Instead, they interview the “synagogue managers,” those people who held senior positions and those who cooperated with the liars. They will go to great lengths to preserve the lie and the mentality that defends it.

“Feiglin, tell me what we can do,” a senior worker in the Ashkelon municipality shouted to me after a Grad missile landed in her yard. “First of all, change all the names of the streets, plazas and boulevards here back from ‘Rabin’ to their original names,” I answered her. She, totally shocked, turned around and walked away, not comprehending what I had just said to her.

Remember Rabin. It is impossible to get through to a public that is captive to a misconception. From at least the time of Oslo, (Infamous handshake on White House lawn with Clinton, Rabin, Peres and Arafat and may this incident live in the infamy it deserves – jsk)

Israel has been captive. Instead of freeing itself from the Oslo mentality and the name Rabin that symbolizes it, they changed the names of the Katyusha missiles. Rabin promised they wouldn’t fly from Gaza into Israel. They do, but never fear. In the north, where Rabin never promised we would not be hit by Katyushas, we are still attacked by Katyushas. But in the south, where he scoffed at the thought, we are attacked by Grads.

Just a short while after the recent murderous rampage (a.k.a. terror attack) in the south, Israel’s Air Force eliminated five senior terrorists in Gaza. The news broadcasts also mentioned that they were behind Gilad Shalit’s abduction. Why didn’t they kill them earlier and prevent the murders? Because Israel has no goal other than to survive.

Its leadership cannot initiate anything because there is no national goal for which it is legitimate to fight – other than simple existence. If Israel had killed the terrorists before their rampage, tensions here would have escalated and the media that continues to pump Oslo into our bloodstream would have blamed our leaders. In other words, when there is no destiny beyond mere existence, we cannot initiate. All we can do is react. So now we have more murdered Jews – and an escalation of tensions, as well.

All that we wanted was to realize the Zionist goal of “being a normal nation like all other nations.” We tried to create an artificial reality that would replace the heavy burden of destiny that the Jewish nation carries on its back. But reality, of course, cannot be changed. We have lost eye contact with our destiny and now, even though we are stronger than ever, we cannot defend ourselves. Without destiny, all we can do is react. And he who only reacts will ultimately fall.

I am a great believer in the nation of Israel. I believe that ultimately, we will return to our destiny. When that happens, our enemies will evaporate. I just pray that the process of reclaiming our destiny will not be too painful.



Powered by Facebook Comments

Religious Conversion Islamic Style

Islam’s History of Forced Conversions

Religious Conversion Islamic Style

By Raymond Ibrahim

Middle East Forum: Pajamas Media

September 29, 2011

Finding and connecting similar patterns of behavior throughout Islamic history is one of the most objective ways of determining whether something is or is not part of Muslim civilization. Consider the issue of forced conversion in Islam, a phenomenon that has a long history with ample precedents.

Indeed, from its inception, most of those who embraced Islam did so under duress, beginning with the Ridda wars and during the age of conquests, and to escape dhimmi status. This is a simple fact. Yet, when one examines today’s cases of forced conversions with those from centuries past, identical patterns emerge, demonstrating great continuity.

Consider: Days ago in Pakistan, two Christian men were severely beaten with iron rods and left for dead by a group of Muslims, simply because they refused to convert to Islam. According to Compass Direct News, they were returning from a church service when they were accosted by six Muslims. After they discovered they were Christian, the Muslims then started questioning them about their faith and later tried to force them to recite the Kalma [Islamic conversion creed, “There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is his messenger”] and become Muslims, telling them that this was the only way they could live peacefully in the city.

They also offered monetary incentives and “protection” to Ishfaq and Naeem [the Christians], but the two refused to renounce Christianity. “After cajoling the two Christians for some time,” the Muslims pretended to go away, only to ram their car into the Christians: “The Muslims [then] got out of the car armed with iron rods and attacked Ishfaq and Naeem, shouting that they should either recite the Kalma or be prepared to die…severely beating[ing] the two Christians, fracturing Ishfaq Munawar’s jaw and breaking five teeth, and seriously injuring Masih…. [T]he two Christians fell unconscious, and the young Muslim men left assuming they had killed them.”

Contrast this contemporary account with the following anecdote from some 500 years past (excerpted from Witnesses for Christ, pgs.62-64): In the year 1522, two Christian brothers in Ottoman Egypt were denounced by local Muslims “mostly out of jealousy and envy”; so the emir arrested them and “began flattering them and asking questions about their faith.” The brothers made it clear that they were firm adherents of Christianity. “The Muslims in the audience became enraged with the brothers when they heard their answers, and they began screaming and demanding they must become Muslims.”

The brothers responded by refusing to “deny the faith we received from our forefathers, but we will remain unshaken and very firm in it until the end.” The Muslim judge deciding their case told the Christian brothers that if they simply said the Kalma and embraced Islam, they “would be given many honors and much glory”; otherwise, they would die.

At that point, the brothers’ mother came to support them, but “when the Muslims in court noticed her, they fell upon her, tore her clothing, and gave her a thorough beating.” After rebuking them for their savagery, the brothers reaffirmed that they would never deny Christianity for Islam, adding “behold our necks, do what you wish, but do it quickly.”

Hearing this, one of the Muslims in the audience became so angry that he took out a knife and stabbed Kyrmidoles [one brother] in the chest, while someone else kicked him as hard as possible, and another dropped a large stone on his head. Finally, they plucked out his eyes. Thus Kyrmidoles died. As for Gabriel [his brother] they threw him to the ground and one of the soldiers severed his right shoulder and then proceeded and cut off his head.

Now, consider the near identical patterns in the two accounts, separated by half a millennium: The Muslims first begin by talking to the Christians about their religion, suggesting they convert to Islam. Failing to persuade the Christians, the Muslims proceed to “cajole” and offer “monetary incentives and protection” (in the modern case) and “flatter” and offer “many honors and much glory” (in the historic case). All that the Christians need do is speak some words, the Kalma, and become Muslim. When the Christians still refuse, the Muslims fly into a savage rage, beating and torturing their victims to death (in the modern case, the Muslims assumed they had killed their victims).

Considering the Ottoman Empire and contemporary Pakistan are separated by culture, language, and some 500 years, how does one explain these identical patterns? What binds them together? Only Islam—Islam empowered, Islam in charge; Muslim majorities governing, and thus abusing their non-Muslim minority. A fact of life, past and present.

Raymond Ibrahim, an Islam specialist and author of The Al Qaeda Reader, is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and an Associate Fellow at the Middle East Forum.



Powered by Facebook Comments

Obama uses Biden to cover his tracks

Obama uses Biden to cover his tracks

Redacted from article by Staff

The Jerusalem Post –  October 2, 2011

‘NY Times’ reports US vice president told rabbis in Florida “over my dead body are we going to let him out before his time”; Obama is yet to decide. US Vice President Joe Biden opposed offering clemency to jailed Israeli agent Jonathan Pollard, the New York Times quoted Biden as saying in an article published on Saturday. US President Barack Obama has yet to respond to a request from President Shimon Peres and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to grant clemency to Pollard.

“President Obama was considering clemency, but I told him, ‘Over my dead body are we going to let him out before his time,’” Biden said. “If it were up to me, he would stay in jail for life.”

In a press release circulated by the Justice For Jonathan organization, it is stated that the vice president gave “absolutely no clue as to the reason for his flip-flop,” which contradicts a video interview he gave in 2007 in which he expressed support for Pollard’s release via commutation of his sentence to time served:

Biden also did not offer any explanation, the statement said, to contradict the professional opinions expressed by the former head of the CIA, the former- attorney- general, several former secretaries of state, the former head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, the former White House legal counsel and “a host of others intimately familiar with the case, who all think freedom for Pollard is long overdue.”

The group stated that Biden’s change of heart on Pollard supported the New York Times contention that Biden’s recent declaration that Pollard should never be released was a “stunt to take the hit for his boss, Obama.” The president has been repeatedly criticized for his silence in response to requests by high ranking American official requests for Pollard’s release, according to the group.

The New York Times reported that Obama is relying on Biden to help him retain the Jewish vote, seen by many to be slipping to the Republicans. Next month Pollard will complete his 26th year of a life sentence. Despite some warning signs, Democratic officials maintain that they do not think that Mr. Obama is in danger of losing the Jewish vote — particularly given the president’s muscular defense of Israel at the United Nations General Assembly last week.

But a Republican victory in the race for a Congressional seat in a heavily Orthodox Jewish district in New York three weeks ago clearly has some Democratic officials unsettled. So the White House has unleashed a barrage of officials — including Samantha Power, a senior aide at the National Security Council, and Susan Rice, the United States ambassador to the United Nations — to soothe relations with American Jewish leaders.




Powered by Facebook Comments

The Media and the Tea Party

By L Brent Bozell III

Media Watch Center – America’s Media Watchdog

The liberal media will stop at nothing to cripple the Tea Party. They are attacking this grassroots movement because it is:

1) An effective force for conservatism
2) They need a bogeyman to blame for the economic disaster caused by the socialist policies of President Obama and his allies in Congress

The Media is all geared to help  left-wingers in the 2012 elections. Here at the Media Research Center (MRC) we’ve documented and exposed the media attacks against the Tea Party since it was born during the Obamacare battle in early 2010. Since then, the vitriol hurled by left-wing journalists against conservatives has grown coarser, in contradiction to all their pleading about “civility.” This was abundantly obvious in the fight over raising the federal debt ceiling in July and August.

Let’s look at some examples from that battle  and remember this is the same media that somehow blamed the Jan. 8 Tucson shooting of Congresswoman Gabriella Gifford and the killing of five others,  on the rhetoric of conservative talk radio and the Tea Party.

Remember also that President Obama gave a nationally televised speech in Tucson after the shooting calling for “more civility in our public discourse.” He also said, “at a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized … it’s important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds.”

Okay, now fast forward to the debt-ceiling debate. On July 27, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman  blared, “If sane Republicans do not stand up to this Hezbollah faction in their midst, the Tea Party will take the GOP on a suicide mission.”  (Huh? The usual non-sequitar idiotic Friedman conclusions).

Two days later, MSNBC’s Steven Rattner seriously argued  “the problem with this is it’s like a form of economic terrorism. I imagine these Tea Party guys are like strapped with dynamite, standing in the middle of Times Square at rush hour and saying, ‘Either you do it my way, or we’re going to blow you up, ourselves up, and the whole country up with us.”  In other words, Tea Party Americans are like radical Islamic suicide bombers! Is that civil discourse?

That same day, July 29, Bloomberg News’ Margaret Carlson described Tea Party lawmakers as the “nihilist caucus”, which is, ‘Listen, we want to burn the place down.’ … They’ve strapped explosives to the Capitol and they think they’re immune from it. The Tea Party caucus wants this crisis.”

(Note to Carlson: By the way, President Obama’s communist friends, Bill Ayres and Bernadine Dohrn did in fact, participate in actual bombings of the Capitol and the Pentagon in 1971-72 and somehow got away scott-free!)

Over at CBS, the marginally more rational Bob Schieffer exclaimed, “Some people say the Republican Party has been held hostage by the Tea Party.” At least at CBS Tea Partiers have been downgraded from terrorists to kidnappers. Howard Fineman of The Huffington Post threw another twisted analogy into the mix by telling viewers of MSNBC’s Hardbail, “What’s going on here, as I see it, is a kind of slow-motion secession…. The Tea Party people are saying, we want to secede from that society.”

Hardball  host Chris Matthews (of Obama speech making shivers run up his leg fame) smeared the Tea Party for backing real spending cuts and a balanced budget amendment as part of the debt-ceiling deal. After the vote on the deal, Matthews lamented, “What I saw at least was one guy with a knife and the other trying to avoid being cut. It was a thug attacking a victim. It was a mugging. The mugging continues, again and again and again. The people who perpetrated this assault on the president will come back to do it again.” Nice civility, don’t you think?

Putting the arsenic-icing on the rhetorical cake, totally predictably Far Left, New York Times columnist, Maureen Dowd snapped: “Tea Party budget-slashers were like cannibals, eating their own party and leaders alive. They were like vampires, draining the country’s reputation, credit rating and compassion. They were like zombies, relentlessly and mindlessly coming back again and again to assault their unnerved victims, Boehner and President Obama.”

Not surprisingly, the oh-so sensitive left-wing media said nothing about this vile rhetoric. While the debt deal was a loser for conservatives – no real spending cuts and no balanced budget – the hberal media also know the political fallout is bad for Obama especially the downgrading of America’s credit rating by Standard & Poor’s. So, they’re trying to shift the blame to the Tea Party.

In an MRC press release, yours truly (Brozell III) said, “To blame the Tea Party for the S&P downgrade is like blaming the Betty Ford Clinic for alcoholism. The entire existence of the Tea Party movement has been based on an attempt to stop the runaway spending of Washington – by the likes of John Kerry.

This is a well-coordinated effort by the left-wing to deflect bad news – very bad news away from their very left-wing President Obama.” The liberal media will do anything to cut the Tea Party off at the knees and cover for Obama and liberals in the 2012 election year. The discourse is only going to get worse.

Media Watch Center is tracking, exposing, and neutralizing that well orchestrated serial dishonesty every day, through our MRC divisions online, and in print, on talk radio, television, Facebook,Twitter, and through our MRC Action Team. The battle is intensifying and we are advancing, so stay tuned.

L. Brent Bozell III
Founder and President, Media Research Center



Powered by Facebook Comments

Shocking Facts on US Poverty!

Obama Depression – Poverty Rate at Highest Since 1993

Shocking Facts on US Poverty!

September 13th, 2011

By Andrew Zarowny

More bad economic news for the Obama administration as the United States Census Bureau reports that the poverty rate is now at 15.1%, the highest since 1993. The actual number of American people in poverty is at a 52-year high.

On top of that, the median household income has dropped to the lowest level since 1996. The unemployment rate is chronically high with long term average now at 40 weeks, something not seen since the Great Depression. Meanwhile, all we get from Barack Obama is another watered down stimulus spending program disguised as a jobs bill. All of its provisions are short-termed, usually ending on January 1, 2013, when, conveniently, taxes are raised to pay for the darn thing.

More than 14 million Americans are without a job. Around 35 million either have no job or are working part-time jobs to make ends meet. The Census Bureau now reports that around 46 million live in poverty, about one in six. Despite the glories of ObamaCare, the number of uninsured Americans has increased to 49.9 million, up nearly a million just since 2009. That would make for 16.1% of Americans being without any health insurance.

To call the Obama administration a failure is too kind at this point. Now, it is a total disaster! A man-made disaster, caused by Barack Obama and his Democrat allies. We are now long past the textbook definitions of recession. The number of American people at or below the poverty rate is now at its highest since 1993. The median household income is at its lowest since 1996. If we were a parliamentary form of government, Obama would have already been sent packing from a vote of no confidence. The new report by the United States Census Bureau, coupled with the never-ending sags of chronically high unemployment rates, spells the word Depression. The Obama Depression lies on the shoulder of Barack Obama, as his policies have not only failed, but have made things far worse.



Powered by Facebook Comments

It’s Rosh Hashanah, Israeli Style – (great musical video) 

It’s Rosh Hashanah, Israeli Style – (great musical video) 

“If I forget thee, O’ Jerusalem,
Let my right hand forget it’s cunning.
  Let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth,
if I remember thee not; if I set not Jerusalem
above my greatest joy.”
In these critical days
may we all renew our ancient promise.
And may our prayers be fulfilled
for health, happiness, and a sweet year
for you and your loved ones.
Shana Tova U’Metuka!
Jerry Kaufman

Many thanks to Drs. Ruth and Richard Rolnick for this fun Rosh Hashanah card




Powered by Facebook Comments

I Obama coerces weak Netanyahu II Magnificent Netanyahu Response at UN on Video

I Fellow MK (Member of Knesset) blasts Obama and Netanyahu

II PM Netanyahu responds in his usual magnificent manner before UN General Assembly, Sept.23, 2011 – Video below
September 20, 2011

A Knesset member visiting Los Angeles has accused Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of buckling under intense pressure from President Barack Obama, who wants to prevent any Israeli retaliation against the Palestinian Authority in its bid to win recognition as a state from the United Nations.

Dr. Aryeh Eldad, a member of the self-described “right-wing” Hatikvah faction of the National Union party, charged that Obama was holding Netanyahu “at gunpoint” – the gun being the U.S. threat to go back on its promise to veto the Palestinian statehood bid in the UN Security Council.

Specifically, Obama has demanded that Netanyahu and Israel’s supporters in the United States pressure Congress to abort two pending resolutions to penalize the Palestinian Authority (PA) if it pursues its bid, Eldad claimed.

One would shut off U.S. aid funds to the Palestinians and a second would support Israel’s right to annex the West Bank. The legal justification for such actions, cited by many Israeli officials, would be that the unilateral statehood request would be a direct violation of the 1993 Oslo Accords.

Eldad said he was certain of the accuracy of his information, but declined to name his sources.

“Netanyahu is the first Israeli prime minister who hasn’t threatened sanctions if the PA seeks unilateral statehood,” Eldad said during a phone interview.

Asked what he would do if he were prime minister, Eldad replied, “I would immediately annex Judea and Samaria (West Bank). There will be some riots, as in the two intifadas, but this will happen in any case, because the expectations of the Palestinians can never be met. They think the sun will rise in the west the day after independence.”

Eldad’s National Union has four Knesset seats and is in the opposition, but he asserts that a total of 42 members, many belonging to the government coalition, share his viewpoint.

As to his stand on an eventual negotiated two-state solution, Eldad, a prominent physician before he turned to politics, said he was enthusiastically in favor – as long as the Palestinian state was Jordan. He predicted that when the Arab Spring uprisings reached Jordan, Palestinians, who make up the majority of the population, would take over and turn the country into their own state. If this happens, Eldad said, he would oppose a forcible transfer of Palestinians from the West Bank to Jordan.

Eldad is nearing the end of his 15-day stay in the United States, during which he lobbied Congress members in Washington, D.C., met with Jewish organizations in New York, and on Sunday addressed some 2,000 evangelical Christians at the Calvary Chapel in Costa Mesa.

Based on his various meetings, he described the American Jewish community as largely confused, with even strong lobbies such as AIPAC sidelined “as long as Netanyahu is not strong enough to lead.”

Will there ever be peace? “Maybe in four generations,” Eldad responded, Israel and its neighbors will find equilibrium “like Europe after its religious wars.”

II PM Netanyahu’s magnificent response before UN General Assembly Sept. 23, 2011



Powered by Facebook Comments