America Supports Israel, Rejects Obama's Policies

A recent poll conducted by McLaughlin and Associates has found that the majority of American adults support Israel and oppose Obama's Middle East Policy.

50.9% of Americans said Jerusalem should remain Israel's undivided capital, compared to just 20.4% who disagreed. 77.9% said that Palestinian Authority leaders should recognize Israel as the Jewish state, compared to just 6% who said they should not.

A majority of 57.2% said Arab terrorism and denial of Israel's right to exist is primarily responsible for the Arab-Israeli conflict.

More Americans felt a Palestinian state would increase problems in the Middle East than felt it would be a solution. 25.5% said that if such a state were created, terrorism against Israel would actually increase, with 50.2% saying that the anti-American sentiment in the Arab world would be unchanged.

51.6% agreed that Obama has been less friendly to Israel than previous presidents, while 35.4% disagreed. 54.4% said they disagree with Obama's policy of publicly criticizing Israel while 27% agree with Obama's actions.
46.5% said they believe Obama's attempt to reach out to the Muslim world has left America less secure, while 33.1% said they believe America is now more secure.

The poll also found that a candidate's image as pro-Israel or anti-Israel could affect elections. 52.7% said they were more likely to vote for a candidate they perceive as pro-Israel, while 53.6% said they would not vote for an anti-Israel candidate even if they agreed with them on other issues.

Another finding was a strong concern that America could be the target if Iran obtained nuclear weapons. 49.8% said Iran is at least somewhat likely to attack America if it develops nuclear weapons, while a smaller number, 45.4%, termed such a scenario unlikely.
59.8% expressed support for destroying Iran's nuclear facilities in order to prevent the creation of a nuclear weapon, if sanctions fail.

Based on the findings of this poll, where to do you think the Obama Administration really stands? Judge its standing not according to empty words, but in relation to its deeds and actions. The conclusion, yet again, is that the Obama team is not in tone with the majority of the American people.

Jewish Support for GOP on the Rise

The plunge in Jewish support for Obama can be traced to plenty of reasons besides his pro-Arab policies and utter incompetence (overwhelmingly demonstrated during the Gulf Oil spill). The American Thinker news editor Ed Lasky writes that the failing Obama economic policies have a disproportionate and negative effect on American Jews.

The alarm bells went off in Democratic circles last week when the Pew Research Center reported that the number of Jews supporting Republican candidates or independents has jumped 50% since Obama was elected nearly three years ago.

A poll conducted last April by McLaughlin & Associates revealed that while 78% of American Jews voted for Barack Obama, only 42% would consider voting for him again.

Claims that Jews are pro-Israel, with the insinuation that they profess dual loyalty, were championed last Saturday in an op-ed by New York Times columnist Charles Blow. The duplicity and dishonesty of the leftist “drive-by” media is appalling, of course, since the same charge is not made against Latino Congressmen, many of whom have made immigration reform (i.e. blanket Amnesty) a top priority. The hidden anti-Semitism of the left is sometimes hard to confine.

As many Jews are owners of small businesses in the US, “Obama Care,” economic policies aimed against small businessmen, proposed higher taxes on high-income owners and capital gains will hit Jews much harder than other sectors in American society.

Small business owners are the unsung heroes in America; they generate most of the private-sector jobs. They also lead generally very stressful lives -- trying to deal with the challenges of competition, labor relations, customer service [and] risks of bankruptcy. Through his anti-capitalist policies, Barack Obama and the Democrats have just loaded onto their shoulders many more problems.

“Obama Care” will negatively affect Jews more than others for two reasons: they are the oldest ethnic group in America and also include a disproportionately high percentage of American doctors.

Older people have often relied on the health of the stock market to cushion their retirement years. That cushion has deflated this year under the multiple blows administered by Barack Obama and the Democrats…. The market started to tank because investors saw a bleak future for free enterprise in the Age of Obama… “Obama Care” will suppress the freedom of doctors, load them up with additional paperwork and patients, and will eventually hit their bottom line.”

“Jews are as American as everyone else,” the article concludes. “When they see their lives being harmed, their interests being ignored, and their dreams being dashed to death by Democrats, they respond just as other Americans do. They express their concerns and seek to protect their future in that most American of places: the voting booth.”

Stimulus Plan for...Kenya

Everyone knows that the country is rapidly approaching a financial abyss. That however, does not mean that the Obama regime cannot pump money into...Kenya.

In response to recent inquiry started by Reps. Chris Smith (R-NJ), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) and Darrell Issa (R-CA) the U.S. Agency for International Development admitted to spending more than $23 million of U.S. taxpayer money to influence voters in Kenya to pass a highly contentious constitution. The investigation revealed that the Obama regime has secretly funded a "Yes" vote on a constitutional referendum (scheduled for Aug. 4) that would increase access to abortions in Kenya and establish legal status for Islamic law tribunals.

The proposed constitution would water down the existing abortion law and would grant legal status to what are known as "Kadhi Courts," constituting an Islamic judicial structure within the overall structure of the Kenyan legal structure. Codifying the "Kadhi Courts" would constitute a blatant violation of the separation of state and religion by allowing Sharia law to have official legal status.

In the 2007 presidential campaign in Kenya, Raila Odinga – the presidential candidate of the Orange Democratic Party and a Luo tribesman, like Obama's father – signed an undisclosed memorandum of understanding with radical Muslims in Kenya to expand Islamic law within the country in exchange for Muslim support of his candidacy.

Many Kenyans believe the provision in the proposed referendum that would establish Kadhi Courts is a fulfillment of the agreement Odinga made with Sheik Abdullah Abdi, the chairman of the National Muslim Leaders Forum.

US taxpayers funds are used to take sides in what is an internal Kenyan affair which drew criticism from the Kenyan Higher Education Minister William Ruto (who is leading the team opposing the constitutional referendum). He has accused the US Ambassador in Kenya of crossing the "no-go-zone for foreign diplomats."

Obama's links to Odinga

The Obama administration's funding of Kenyan internal politics appears to follow a pattern then-Sen. Obama first set on his 2006 Senate-funded visit to Kenya.

During that trip, Obama campaigned so openly for Odinga that Kenyan government spokesman Alfred Mutua went on Kenyan television to object that Obama was meddling inappropriately in Kenyan politics.

During the December 2007 elections, Odinga called for protests over alleged voter fraud, which resulted in violence leaving an estimated 1,000 members of the dominant Kikuyu tribe in Kenya dead and an estimated 500,000 displaced from their homes.

In a horrifying incident following the election, at least 50 people, including women and children, were killed when an angry mob forced Kikuyu Christians into an Assembly of God church in the village of Eldoret, about 185 miles northwest of Nairobi. The mob set fire to the church, hacking with machetes any of the Christians who attempted to escape the flames.

Obama did not object to Odinga's continued push to share the head of state with President Mwai Kibaki despite Odinga's electoral defeat.

Instead, Obama worked with former U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan to end the violence by creating for Odinga the position of prime minister – a position not defined in the Kenyan constitution – so Odinga could become co–head of state with Kibaki.

The International Criminal Court in The Hague, Netherlands, is currently investigating the possibility of criminal charges against both Kibaki and Odinga for their roles in the postelection violence.

Your tax dollars at work in...Kenya.

Dangerous Naïveté or Hidden Enmity?

Lets see if you can answer this short quiz:
1. Which organization is most responsible for the wave of kidnappings of Westerners in Lebanon in the '80s?
2. Which organization is responsible for the 1983 bombing of the US Embassy and the Marines barracks in Beirut which killed 241 Americans?
3. Which organization kidnapped and murdered US Marine Col. William Higgins and the CIA Beirut station chief William Buckley?
4. Which organization is responsible for the 1992 bombing of the Israeli Embassy and the Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires which left 85 innocents dead?

If you answered Hezbollah to all of the above, you were right, if not, you were either uniformed or chose to oversee the facts....Much like Obama's "counter-terrorism" chief, John Brennan. Recently, he announced that the Obama administration wants to "try to build up the more moderate elements" within Hezbollah!

In a murderous group officially labeled as a "foreign terrorist organization" by the U.S. State Department, closely tied to Iran, which funds and supplies it and third most responsible for American casualties (after Al Qaeda and Taliban), a deluded Administration wants to “build up (…) more moderate elements”.

Brennan is quoted as saying that Hezbollah has evolved from "purely a terrorist organization" to a militia to an organization that now has members within the parliament and the cabinet. Does that mean that a moderate wing of Hezbollah now exists or does this mean that a terrorist group has infiltrated the government of Lebanon?

When a terrorist group takes on quasi-governmental characteristics, as Hamas has done in Gaza, or forces its way into elected positions in a weak state, as Hezbollah has done in Lebanon, that is not "evolution" - it is another step toward those groups' original goal: bringing down a fledging democracy and replace it with an Islamist government. The Nazis in the 1930’s Germany employed similar tactics and used democratic institutions in order to destroy democracy.

Brennan has a history of controversial judgement to say the least. In a speech last February to the Islamic Center at New York University, Brennan said, "And, in all my travels the city I have come to love most is Al-Quds, Jerusalem, where three great faiths come together." Al-Quds, the Arabic name for Jerusalem, is an Islamist rallying cry. The Ayatollah Khomeini declared the last Friday of Ramadan "Al Quds Day “- "The Day of the Oppressed". Maybe someone should have reminded this rambling idiot that The “Al Quds Brigades” is the name of the "military wing" of a Palestinian Islamist terrorist group and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps has a secret “Al Quds unit”, that coordinates with its terrorist proxies such as Hezbollah. For an American counterterrorism official to use such a weighted phrase to gratify a Muslim audience is not only troubling, it’s either proof of dangerous naïveté or down right stupidity (or both).
In the mean time, his boss, the most anti-Israel President in this country’s history pressures Israel not to build in….Al-Quds.

It is hard to believe that an “expert” in counterterrorism and the Middle East, as Brennan purports himself to be, could be so blind to the reality of Hezbollah, or to the real and growing danger of Iranian power in the region. It so hard to believe that the only other logical conclusion would be that Brennan knows exactly what he is saying and reflects the growing anti-Israel position of his boss, while at the same time, trying to appease the Islamo-Nazis. Reaching out to "build up" imaginary moderates in Hezbollah can only strengthen the Iranian regime, as Obama’s impotent policies toward Iran in the last 17 months have already done, while playing to the far left base of the Democrat Party by showing that the Administration is “building bridges” with the murderers.

Since Brennan is the subject of media speculation as a possible replacement for outgoing Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair, we should all be deeply troubled that a man in whom Obama places such confidence advances such a misguided and out of touch view of our nation's enemies.

Why Didn't Obama Mention Islam?

Most clearly thinking Americans disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling the US foreign policy in general and the war on Islamic terror in particular, but it seems that in Muslim countries, his "over seas contingency operations" are viewed favorably. 'Al-Sharq Al-Awsat,' a leading international Arab newspaper has hailed Obama for officially removing the description “Muslim terrorist” as part of his campaign “to reach out to the Muslim world.” The op-ed did not note the radical Muslim background of the terrorists and reasoned they are equal to other terrorists whose religion is not connected with their acts.

The Saudi owned newspaper, published in London, ran an op-ed last week under the headline "Why Didn't Obama Mention Islam?." The Obama administration has broken from the Bush government’s policy of using the term “Islamic terrorism” in official documents and "no longer [is] responding to extremist voices" that call for targeting home countries of terrorists, the article explained.

Echoing views in the Muslim worls, the newspaper sees Obama carrying out his pledge in his “reaching out to Muslims speech” at Cairo University in June 2008. Regarding Obama's statements on the botched Times Square bombing, the editor praised him for not once referring to prime suspect Faisal Shahzad’s as being a Muslim and for not “mentioning Islam in discussing the terrorist operation."

The same approach was taken after the failed Christmas Day bombing by Nigerian Muslim Umar Farouk Abdulmuttalib. “Obama spoke about the detained terrorist as a member of the Al-Qaeda organization but he did not speak about him being a Muslim. (...) Even when he spoke about Al-Qaeda, Obama noted that it was not the first time that the network had targeted America, ignoring the links that were made in the past between the organization and Islam or when it was put in the context of 'Islamic extremism.'"

Similarly, after the Fort Hood, Texas attack by a Muslim terrorist who murdered 13 people last November, “President Obama 'cautioned against jumping to conclusions’” and did not refer to the terrorist's Arab origin or religion.

The article did not mention that most, if not all, Arab terrorists are indoctrinated by Muslim extremism. Instead, the editor argued that describing terrorists as Muslims actually provokes more terror. “There is recognition today of the fact that terrorists are benefiting from the creation of an anti-Islamic and anti-Muslim atmosphere after any terrorist operation, and that issuing statements or taking steps that target Muslims employed by extremist groups further spreads hostility against the U.S., the West, and even moderate Islamic states,” he reasoned.

The writer argued that “the identity of the terrorist does not necessarily implicate the country he belongs to, in the same way that other adherents of the religion the terrorist follows should not be condemned."

He accused former President George W. Bush of being “captive to the Big Stick policy and slogans of 'you're either with us or against us,' which caused the popularity of the U.S. to wane, not only in the Islamic world but in numerous countries around the world." In contrast, he continued, “The new president has extended his hand to the Islamic world,… and the tendency to link every terrorist operation to the religion of the perpetrator has disappeared.”

The policy of appeasment towards Islamic fascism, the pre-911 mentality together with a wilful attitude of denying reality and hiding from facts are a dangerous characteristic of this Administration.

US Jews Start to Wake Up

There are signs that American Jews are (finally) starting to wake up and see the Obama Administration for what it really is: a radical, anti-Israel Administration.

A recent poll by the McLaughlin Group shows that Obama has lost nearly half of his support among American Jews.

The US Jews polled were asked whether they would: (a) vote to re-elect Obama, or (b) consider voting for someone else. 42% said they would vote for Obama and 46%, a plurality, preferred the second answer. 12% said they did not know or refused to answer.

In the Presidential elections of 2008, 78% of Jewish voters, or close to 8 out of 10, chose Obama. The McLaughlin poll held nearly 18 months later, in April 2010, appears to show that support down to around 4 out of 10.

The poll showed that key voter segments including Orthodox/Hassidic voters, Conservative voters, voters who have friends and family in Israel and those who have been to Israel, are all more likely to consider voting for someone other than Obama.

Among Orthodox/Hassidic voters, 69% marked 'someone else' vs. 17% who marked 're-elect.' Among Conservative-affiliated voters the proportion was 50% to 38%. Among Reform Jews, a slim majority of 52% still supported Obama while 36% indicated they would consider someone else. Among Jews with family in Israel and those who had been to Israel, about 50% said they would consider someone else, while 41%-42% supported Obama.

Although 50% of the Jewish voters polled said they approved of the job Obama is doing handling US relations with Israel (!?!), 39% said they disapproved.
For a group of voters that have been traditionally Democratic (only 16% of US Jews are believed to be Republican), this rating is not good news.

A majority of 52% said they disapproved of the idea of the Obama Administration supporting a plan to recognize a Palestinian state within two years. 62% said that if given a state, “the Palestinians would continue their campaign of terror to destroy Israel.” Only 19% thought they would live peacefully with Israel.

As Obama loses support among members of the influential Jewish voter bloc, possible Republican candidate Sarah Palin seems to be doing her best to woo them to her camp. At Time Magazine’s May 4 dinner honoring the ‘100 Most Influential People in the World,’ she was sporting a US/Israel flag pin.

Meanwhile, Barack Obama is widely perceived to be behind the de facto construction freeze in eastern Jerusalem. The construction freeze sought by Obama is discriminatory, as by law, the entire city of Jerusalem is under Israeli sovereignty, and no distinction should be made between various neighborhoods.

Another Obama Anti-Zionist Jew

The Czar of Czars (no, it's not the Russian Czar) has gotten himself also an "Anti-Semitism Czar", as if 32 other useless, unelected czars with quasi-dictatorial powers were not enough (for a list of the 32 Obama "czars", go here).

This one is Hannah Rosenthal, a member of the "J Street" advisory panel and an ex-member of the Board of Directors for the left wing "Americans for Peace Now".

"J Street" is a lunatic, far left, anti-Israel organization funded by Arab and other radical sources, masquerading as a concerned supporter of Israel, presenting itself as a counter weight to the powerful pro-Israel lobby AIPAC. "American Thinker" has an excellent article in which it exposes this farce called "J Street" ("Blowing J Street's Cover").

Only a month after her investiture by His Highness the "Czar of Czars", Rosenthal went to attack. Not against the rising Anti-Semitism in Europe or the insane "blood libels" washing the Western and Muslim press...No...Her first target is none other than Michael Oren, Israel's Ambassador to the US, who dared to turn down a "J Street" request to be a key speaker at its first annual conference, refused to attend the event and voice remarks against the far left group.

Rosenthal, in turn, said that Oren "would have learned a lot" had he participated in the conference. Her words prompted a storm of protests, best voiced by Harvey Schwartz, head of American Israeli Action Coalition (AIAC):
"As a high ranking member of the Obama Administration, Rosenthal's criticism of the Israeli Ambassador to the US is beyond bizarre and highly offensive in the extreme. It is a virulent anti-Israel attack which AIAC interprets to be anti-Semitic."
Instead of fighting Anti-Semitism, the ideologue Rosenthal is actually promoting it!

The Israeli Embassy asked for "clarifications" from the US Administration, but it is increasingly clear that the Obama White House is in no way as friendly to the Jewish State as the George W. Bush Administration was. And Rosenthal's remarks are only one of the many slaps Israel has suffered since the "Czar of Czars" has been elected.

To the many voices calling for her resignation, Hannah Rosenthal can only arrogantly say that criticism of her comes from "very few people that blog a lot"....Well, you can add this blogger to those people Hannah. With friends like you and your boss, Israel doesn't need anymore enemies.

Obama: 'take your hands off the Land of Israel!'”

Americans may still be stuck in the dream world provided by the Obama illusion machine (although they are starting to wake up in record numbers), but Israelis are taking to the streets protesting the American imposed freeze on buildings in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem. These are some of the photos from the Dec. 9th, demonstration in Jerusalem, organized by the Yesha Council and attended by tens of thousands of Israelis:

The Bowing President

As Obama wraps up yet another futile foreign trip, he finds another leader to bow to, this time to the Emperor of Japan.
After his bowing to the Saudi despot, apologizing for America's "arrogance" and declaring that Americans are just " a bunch of citizens", Obama is the first President in the history of this nation that does not believe in the uniquness of the American experience.No wonder that back home, Obama's approval ratings hit a new low: 46 percent, according to a FOX News poll released Thursday. An equal number -- 46 percent -- disapprove of the job he's doing. By comparison, more than twice as many Americans disapprove (63 percent) as approve (26 percent) of the job that the Democrat-controlled Congress is doing, but it is of little comfort to Obama.
In the mean time, Sarah Palin's approval ratings continue to rise. Americans are much more likely to give Palin a positive rating (47 percent favorable) than another prominent female leader -- Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (28 percent favorable). Moreover, about six in 10 Americans (61 percent) think Palin has been treated unfairly by the press, according to the latest Fox News poll.
While Obama may not be in a hurry to read Palin's new book, among the critical segment of independent voters, they are virtually even (Obama at 50 percent; Palin at 49 percent).

A Jew Asks Why Are Jews So Liberals?

Tough question. Norman Podhoretz tries to answer this question in an article recently published in the "Wall Street Journal".

Like many other Jewish intellectuals (Bernie Goldberg, Michael Medved), Podhoretz moved from left to right more than four decades ago. Like many other Jews (your humbled blogger, included), he's been hoping for many years that our fellow Jews would come to see that in contrast to what was in the past, our true friends are now located not among liberals, but among conservatives.

Since 1928, the average Jewish vote for a Democrat in presidential elections has been an amazing 75% (far higher than that of any other ethno-religious group). In 2008, 78% of the Jewish vote when to Obama. Except for blacks, who gave him 95% of their vote, Obama scored better with Jews than with any other ethnic or religious group. What makes this even more unbelievable is that despite McCain's long history of sympathy towards Israel and Obama's atrocious associations with outright haters and anti-Semites like Rev. Wright and Rashid Khalidi, Obama beat McCain among Jewish voters by a staggering 57 points!

Today, the Jewish commitment to the Democratic Party has become an anomaly. While other ethno-religious groups have followed the rule that increasing prosperity generally leads to an increasing identification with the Republican Party, Jews still remain heavily committed to the liberal agenda. On abortion, gay rights, school prayer, increased government spending, expanded benefits to the lower classes, greater regulations on business, and the power of organized labor, gun control and assisted suicide, the survey data show that Jews are by far the most liberal of any group in America.

In the conflict between Judaism and "Jewish values", on one side and liberalism on the other, it is the liberal creed that prevails for most American Jews. Which is to say that for them, liberalism has become more than a political outlook. It has for all practical purposes superseded Judaism and become a religion in its own right.

Many such secular Jews, when asked how they would define "a good Jew," reply that it is equivalent to being a good liberal.

In Podhoretz's view, when they look at America, liberals see injustice and oppression of every kind—economic, social and political. By sharp contrast, conservatives see a nation shaped by a complex of traditions, principles and institutions that has afforded more freedom and more prosperity to more of its citizens than in any society in human history. It follows that what liberals believe needs to be changed or discarded—and apologized for to other nations—is precisely what conservatives are dedicated to preserving, reinvigorating and proudly defending against attack.

As such, the Jewish experience in this country bears testimony to the precious virtues of the traditional American system. Surely, then, Jews ought to be joining with conservatives against those who are blind or indifferent or antagonistic to the moral values and the socioeconomic institutions of the traditional American system.

Obama ran on the premise that the American system is seriously flawed and in desperate need of radical change—not to mention a record indicating that he would pursue policies dangerous to the security of Israel. Because of all this, we hoped that our fellow Jews would finally break free of the liberalism of the past. It didn't happen.

The encouraging signs that more and more Jews are showing signs of "buyer's remorse", is perhaps one of the reasons Podhoretz hopes that the exposure of Obama as a "false messiah" will open the eyes of fellow Jews to the falsity of the political creed to which they have for so long been so misguidedly loyal.

Obama's Anti-Zionist Jew II

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has denied calling White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and senior Obama advisor David Axelrod “self-hating Jews."

Whether or not the Prime Minister used the term, increasing criticism by American Jews of Obama signals a split in the American Jewish community.

The trigger for the growing crisis between Israel and the U.S., and among American Jews, is the issue of “settlements” (which Obama labeled as “illegitimate” in his speech in Cairo nearly two months ago) in which he included Jewish communities in eastern Jerusalem.

Obama revealed that Rahm Emanuel, whose father was an Israeli and part of the underground resistance movement under the British Mandate, tells him everything he needs to know about Israel.

Emanuel has pushed Obama into a head-on collision with the Netanyahu government out of a strategy to demonstrate that the pro-Israel lobby American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) no longer speaks for American Jewry.

Obama's game is to try and defeat the Israel lobby from within, since he could not defeat the lobby from outside it.

But that strategy has backfired, turning into a wall of opposition, both in Israel, where Obama’s popularity rating is near-zero, in the U.S. where Emanuel has simply ignored opposing views of major Jewish organizations, and even in the liberal anti-Israeli American press.

The liberal "Washington Post" has criticized Obama on his policy towards Israel, and an editorial on Thursday went even further. Under the title “Tough on Israel - Why: President Obama's battle against Jewish settlements could prove self-defeating,” the newspaper’s editors wrote:

“One of the more striking results of the Obama administration's first six months is that only one country has worse relations with the United States than it did in January: Israel. The new administration has pushed a reset button with Russia and sent new ambassadors to Syria and Venezuela; it has offered olive branches to Cuba and Burma. But for nearly three months it has been locked in a public confrontation with Israel over Jewish housing construction in Jerusalem and the West Bank.”

The newspaper criticized Obama for his “absolutist demand” for a freeze on all building for Jews in Judea and Samaria and eastern Jerusalem and observed that Palestinian and Arab leaders hardened their positions, while the Israeli public opinion has rallied behind Netanyahu (quite the opposite result that Obama and Emanuel had hoped for).

The turning point against Obama may have been the meeting in the White House earlier this month with American Jewish leaders. The Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations requested a discussion with Obama, but Emanuel decided who would attend.

He used the opportunity to attempt to create an impression of solid support for Obama and show off the relative new "J Street" lobby. Unlike AIPAC, it is active politically and endorsed and campaigned for Congressional candidates who fit their agenda, which includes Israel’s surrendering all of Judea and Samaria and parts of Jerusalem that were restored to the Jewish State in the 1967 Six-Day War.

At the same time, he excluded National Council of Young Israel (NCYI) and the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA), both of which support a Jewish presence in all of Israel.

The latest confrontation on a new project for Jews in eastern Jerusalem prompted Alan Solow, chairman of the Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, to state this week, "Hundreds of Arab families have moved into Jewish neighborhoods of Jerusalem and the same right should be accorded to Jewish residents to live wherever they choose in Jerusalem. No government of Israel has or can pursue a discriminatory policy that would prevent the legitimate presence of Jews in any area of the capital."

In response, five leftist groups, including Americans for Peace Now and J Street, criticized supporters of Jews’ rights to build in the area.

While Emanuel is trying to strengthen his position, he faces another challenge on the Obama administration’s health plan. Emanuel’s brother Dr. Ezekiel Emmanuel is Obama’s “health czar,” and the plan is being widely panned in American media, leaving the White House Chief of Staff with two potential failures in the making.

Hands off Jerusalem!

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu issued a sharp response Sunday to Obama's pressure to stop Jews from building in parts of Jerusalem claimed by the Palestinian Authority. Israel's sovereignty in Jerusalem is “not up for debate,” Netanyahu said, and Jews are permitted to build in any part of the capital city, as are Arabs.

Netanyahu implied that the U.S. request was racist, saying before the weekly Cabinet meeting, “Imagine what would happen if Jews were forbidden to live or to buy apartments in certain parts of London, New York, Paris or Rome. There would be an international outcry."

"All the more, we cannot to a decree like this regarding Jerusalem,” he said.

Obama's pressure on Israel is growing and the U.S. State Department summoned Israeli envoy Michael Oren and demanded the halt of construction of Jewish homes in the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood, near the ancient grave of Shimon HaTzaddik (Simon the Just). The property on which the homes are to be built has been owned by Jewish philanthropist Dr. Irving Moskowitz for more than 20 years.

Oren told U.S. officials that Israel would not agree to stop building in the area.

Israel annexed Sheikh Jarrah and other Jerusalem neighborhoods following the Six Day War, in which the city was reunified after 19 years of Jordanian rule in the eastern half of the city. While Israel has maintained sovereignty in the capital city for more than 40 years, the Palestinian Authority continues to demand all areas controlled by Jordan in the 1950s.

Seven Jewish families and an all-day Torah-study program, known as a Kollel, are trying to renew the old Jewish neighborhood of Shimon HaTzaddik (Simon The Just).

The area, where Simon the Just and elders of the Sanhedrin were buried over 2,000 years ago, was a thriving Jewish community from 1895 until 1948, when it was evacuated by the British army during the Arab riots preceding the War of Independence.

In the mean time, former PM, Ehud Olmert is joining the debate. "Obama is making a big mistake by insisting that Israel freeze all building for Jews in Judea and Samaria, former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert wrote Friday in the Washington Post.

In his opinion article, which in effect was an open letter to the president, Olmert reminded the American government that Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East and that its friendship with the United States is one of the country’s “greatest strategic asserts.”

The former Prime Minister wrote that the Annapolis, Maryland Middle East conference in the Middle East in November, 2007 was based on previous agreements with the Bush administration that Jewish population centers in Judea and Samaria would remain part of the State of Israel in any agreement establishing a Palestinian Authority state.

Olmert wrote. "Let me be clear: Without those understandings, the Annapolis process would not have taken on any form. Therefore, the focus on settlement construction now is not useful.”

Olmert noted that a total building freeze is “impossible to completely enforce” and would not help security.

Referring to his own offers for a new PA state, he declared that the U.S. should investigate “why the Palestinian leadership did not accept the far-reaching and unprecedented proposal I offered them. My proposal included a solution to all outstanding issues: territorial compromise, security arrangements, Jerusalem and refugees. It would be worth exploring the reasons that the Palestinians rejected my offer and preferred, instead, to drag their feet, avoiding real decisions.”

Obama's Duplicity: With Iran a Mouse, With Honduras a Lion

The "Wimp in Chief", Obama, squirmed and weaseled his words with the Iranian Mullahs and their puppet-tyrant, Ahmadinejad. He did not publicly lend support to all those Iranians taking to the streets, risking life and limb for more liberty, supposedly, not wanting to be seen as “meddling in Iran’s internal affairs”. If there is anyone on this planet that is not familiar with the Iranian regime, we’re talking about a tyrannical theocracy, known throughout the world as beneath -contempt oppressors of every human right under the sun. He did use the words, "appalled" and "outraged" once pictures went round the world of Iranians demonstrators beaten and killed in the streets of Tehran.

This week, the Honduran socialist president, seeking to gut his country's constitution in a shameless power-grab, reminiscent of his friend, Hugo Chavez in Venezuela was rightly deposed by the country’s military.
Obama's response to the Honduran military removing a dictator-wannabe from office (at the behest of the country’s Supreme Court and the Honduran Congress), and escorting him to the border, was sure and fast. He declared the military action an "illegal coup", in tone with the region's socialist gang: the Castro brothers, Hugo Chavez and Daniel Ortega.

The OAS has given its full backing to the exiled socialist, especially not now, when has paved the way for Castro's readmission into the organization.

Internally, Obama has the backing of the Communist Party USA which is in full agreement with him and even has some of the same demands of the Honduran people:
•Demands that president Zelaya and other members of his government be returned to power immediately, and that the troops return to their barracks.
•Refusing diplomatic recognition and any military aid to Honduras until President Zelaya is restored to power.
•Calls upon unions and other people's organizations in the United States to actively support “our brothers and sisters in Honduras in resisting this brutal military coup d'etat”.

On this background, it should be reminded of the Iran-Venezuela Axis.

Chavez is a vocal supporter of Iran's nuclear program, which is under United Nations sanctions because of fear among the U.S. and its allies that it may be used to build atomic weapons.
Iran and Venezuela are to sign some 20 agreements in various fields during Chavez's visit to Iran, according to the official news agency IRNA. Chavez's visit to the Islamic republic is the third since Ahmadinejad won the presidency in 2005, Iran's local media reported.

Chavez, the socialist, and Ahmadinejad, the Islamo-Fascist, have become quite friendly. Chavez has threatened military action against the Hondurans to restore his pal, Zelaya, to power. Ahmadinejad has called for Israel’s destructions on numerous occasions.

An unholy alliance is being formed by two disparate forces – Islamo-Fascism and Socialism -- united on a tyrannical bent against freedom, against democracy and human rights, against America. Despite their theoretical differences, these regimes share one glaring, common belief: America is responsible for all the suffering and injustice throughout the world. This overriding disgust with America holds together these disparate, radical regimes.

Whose side does Obama take?

Obama Bows to the Muslim World

Obama's speech in Cairo Thursday called for a sweeping change in Muslim-American relations, based on the establishment of a Palestinian state. He told 3,000 guests at Cairo University that he will put pressure on Israel to cease a Jewish presence in Judea and Samaria. He did not specifically state whether Jerusalem neighborhoods are part of the “occupation” that he said must end.
Obama opened the speech with the Islamic greeting, “Peace unto you” in Arabic and reminded his listeners of his Muslim background and quoted the Koran several times.
Concerning Israel, he made it clear that he will personally pressure for an end to the "occupation” that he said has caused displacement to the Arab population in Israel for 60 years. His speech specifically defined the Arabs in Judea, Samaria and Gaza as a “Palestinian people,” and he mentioned their “suffering” immediately after referring to the Holocaust. He accused Israel of being responsible for "humiliation” of Arabs and blamed Israel for the lack of opportunity for Arabs under PA rule, despite the local Arab economy having enjoyed unprecedented economic growth following the end of Jordanian and Egyptian occupation in the 1967 Six-Day War.
Concerning Iran, he capitulated by asserting that it can have nuclear power if it abides by international treaties.
Speaking in the police state of Egypt, Obama addressed the issue of democracy, which he said the U.S. cannot impose. He added that the U.S. will work with countries “that recognize the will of the people.”
He then praised Islam as a force of religious tolerance and racial equality (!!!) and stated that “Muslims have enriched the U.S. and have won Nobel prizes,” although in fact less than handful of Muslims have won international Nobel prices.
In Israel, Obama's speech was met with mixed reactions ranging from sharp criticism coming from the right to foolish remarks (such as Ofier Pines' or Zeev Boim's) from the left.

Obama strived to strike a conciliatory tone in his speech to the Muslim world, in a balanced tone. So what is the problem? It is exactly in the "balanced tone". US policy should not be balanced! It should side with those who fight terror, not those who either engage in it or are too weak to prevent it.

Palestinians must be sent the message that they have to put an end to terrorism, violence, and incitement against Israel. US should stand by Israel - a fellow democracy and committed ally - in its efforts to achieve lasting security for its citizens. Israel's good faith efforts have been met by unremitting Palestinian violence and what is in effect an internal Palestinian civil war. Peace and security go hand in hand - Israel has repeatedly reached out her hand in peace only to have it slapped back. Obama's remarks to the world's Muslims today appear to mark the beginning of a worrisome shift in U.S. policy.

Who Stands With Israel?

The Democratic Party base has changed demographically and with it, the way it views the U.S. relationship with Israel. Democratic voters now have very contrasting views on these matters with those of Republicans, and this gives Obama a potential mandate to change course in U.S. policy.

The latest Zogby Interactive survey conducted from April 1 to April 4, 2009 underlines the increasing difference between the Republican and Democrat views towards Israel. Here are a few of the questions in the survey that found significant differences between self-identified voters for Obama and Republican Sen. John McCain:

U.S. interests and Israel's interests are identical: McCain voters, 78% say YES; Obama voters, 72% say NO.
--Do you believe U.S. support for Israel strengthens or weakens U.S. security? McCain voters: 72% strengthens, Obama voters: 50% weakens.
--If Israel continues to build settlements in the West Bank, the U.S. should get tough on Israel McCain voters, 26% YES; Obama voters, 71% YES.
--The US Administration should lean toward Israel: McCain voters, 60%; Obama voters, 9%.

Support for Israel is extremely high among evangelical Christians, who are the bedrock of the Republican base. That, coupled with broad acceptance of neo-conservative foreign policy among Republicans, accounts for the survey results. Support for Israel among Republicans now ranks as one of the party's defining issues, along with anti-abortion and gun rights.
By comparison, more American Jews believe in "talks" and appeasement as strategies that would benefit Israel and most back Obama's liberal policies on the economy, pro-abortion and gay rights.

So who really stands with Israel? Apart from conservative Jews, the evangelical Christians are Israel's most ardent supporters, not the majority of the American Jews. Those are sadly more concerned with their hypocritical Liberal self-image than with the security and well being of Israel (or the US, for that matter).

How will this emerging political reality affect the Obama administration's policies regarding Israel? Obama will emphasize dialogue and appeasement to the detriment of the basic security interests of the State of Israel.

Pursuing that course, Obama will face opposition from Republicans and U.S. supporters of Netanyahu's hard-line policies toward the Palestinians. However, these are not the voters who elected him. Those that did, want a new, less friendlier U.S. policy towards Israel, and they will demand Obama to implement it.

Obama - A Mistake the Israelis Cannot Afford to Make

In baseball terms, it's called "taking one for the team". In other words, Obama would like to demand that Israel sacrifices its security to test Iran's willingness to make peace.

Neither Obama nor his minions will put it in those terms but they allude to the "linkage" between the urgent need for Israel to make peace with the Palestinians and Iran's willingness to give up their quest for nuclear weapons.

The "linkage" idea was thrown around by Rahm Emanuel, Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton and it is a foolish idea, real only in the minds of those who refuse to see three fundamental realities of the Mideast.

The first is that Palestinian culture is dominated by a culture of death and bloody "martyrdom", with children programs, music videos and mosque sermons all glorifying death and war against the Jews.

The second reality is that Iran has repeatedly demonstrated that it will not give up its nuclear aspirations voluntarily. Even its so-called "moderate" leaders see the bomb as a ticket to regional dominance and the final victory over Israel. One such "moderate" called Israel "a one bomb country," meaning one would be enough.

The third reality is that there is simply no linkage between the creation of a Palestinian state and Iran's ambition for nukes. To believe otherwise is to believe Iran embarked on the nuclear quest because the Palestinians lacked a state. Nobody in their right mind believes that.

Yet Obama is charging full speed ahead with its vision of a deal, conforming to the liberal Democrats' view that Netanyahu and Israeli conservatives are the problem.

If Israel were to agree to Obama's demand, it likely would get the worst of both worlds: more violence from the Palestinians while Iran merrily moves toward the bomb.

It would be suicidal for Israel to entertain the idea of a nuclear Iran. Even if they assume Iran would not 'nuke' Israel (out of fear that a counterstrike), the Iranian possession of a nuke would wreak havoc do to the morale of its society. The Israelis would be living under threat of a Holocaust every day.

Just because the American people has been fooled into trusting Obama does not mean that the Israelis should make the same mistake.

Obama's Anti-Zionist Jew

Rahm Emanuel, Chief of Staff to Barack Hussein Obama, told a large group of AIPAC supporters on Sunday that American efforts to stop Iran’s nuclear program depend on progress in Israel’s peace talks with the Palestinian Authority.

MK Yaakov Katz, chairman of the Ichud Leumi (National Union) party, says the veiled threat by Emanuel should be rebuffed and exposed for what it is: “He is basically telling Israel to commit suicide in exchange for American consent to consider dealing with the Iranian threat to the world.”

What Emanuel is saying is that in order for the U.S. to agree to act against the nuclear program that threatens not only Israel, but the entire civilized world, the price is that Israel should agree to a two-state solution that will see Hamas threatening its population centers with its missiles not only from Gaza, but from the very heart of Israel as well, in Judea and Samaria.

“In other words,” Katz is saying, “we have to bring ourselves to the brink of extinction by allowing Hamastan into Judea and Samaria. And this is the idea of a Jew, Rahm Emanuel – a Jew whose father fought in the Etzel (Irgun) against the British for the future of the State of Israel, but whose son, born in America, identifies with the most left-wing opinions, whose significance is the destruction of the State of Israel.”

Unfortunately, Jews like Rahm Emmanuel express the believes of a majority among the US Jewry. Blinded by their far left ideological allegiance, most do not realize the implications of their political actions on the security and the very existence of Israel. An extremist minority subscribe to the credo of the anarchist, universal radical left, which seeks the destruction of the State of Israel.

Katz noted that what is happening in Pakistan right now is proof that Israel cannot even consider “doing business” with its Muslim enemies.

There is a lesson to be learnt from the “Pakistani experiment": the government made many concessions to the Taliban/Al Qaeda, giving them Islamic courts and allowing them control over certain areas, hoping to thus curry favor with them. But the result was that the Taliban is now threatening the Pakistani capital, Islamabad, and the fear is that the terrorists will gain access to Pakistan’s nuclear weapons. The government there finally realized that it has no choice but to fight them.

"We do not want to find ourselves with Tel Aviv and all of Israel’s cities under the same threat," Katz said, "and therefore we cannot entertain the type of solution that Emanuel wishes to force upon us – against the will of the people as democratically expressed in our recent elections.”

Obama: The First 100 Days

With much fanfare, Obama has recently celebrated the mark of the First 100 Days in office. For those who just can’t wait to hear what the president’s teleprompter will say next, here’s a recap of the Obama gaffe machine:

Sacrifice good for others: In his inaugural address, Obama calls on Americans to adopt a spirit of sacrifice, which apparently doesn’t include his own "coronation". The $49 million cost of his swearing-in ceremony is triple the cost of Bush’s first inaugural.

Ooops! Obama stumbles badly over the oath of office, inadvertently led astray by Chief Justice John Roberts. A day later, the duo conduct a do-over, safely removed from TV cameras and press photographers.

Honesty? What Honesty?Obama promised a new era of openness and honesty in government, yet New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson had withdrawn from consideration for Commerce Secretary because of a federal probe of campaign donations, Treasury secretary nominee Tim Geithner failed to pay $34,000 in back taxes and former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (nominated for Health secretary) failed to pay $146,000 in taxes. Nancy Killefer steps down from consideration to become the government’s first chief performance officer, when it is learned her past performance includes failure to pay taxes for her household help. Annette Nazareth, who was nominated for Deputy Treasury Secretary withdraws for undisclosed "personal reasons," following a month-long probe into her taxes and other matters.

No more Lobbyists?. Not so fast! Obama pledges lobbyists won’t work in his White House, then makes 17 exceptions during his first 10 days in office, including Attorney General Eric Holder and Deputy Defense Secretary William Lynn, a former lobbyist for Raytheon.

Who cares about the facts? Obama promises workers at Caterpillar that his stimulus bill will save their jobs. Caterpillar CEO Jim Owens later clarifies. "The truth is we're going to have more layoffs before we start hiring again".

Partisanship you can believe in. The White House manages to politicize the 2010 U.S. Census by announcing it will be directed by the White House under the auspices of Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. The measure will politicize apportionment of House seats, redistricting, and distribution of federal aid.

Transparency? What transparency? Obama’s promise of a 48-hour review period for all legislation is tossed away during debate over the stimulus bill. The 1,100-page document calling for $787 billion spending did not get a review and has not been read by a single member of Congress.

Selling low. Obama likens the stock markets to political “tracking polls,” suggesting they’re unimportant. When Obama speaks, Wall Street listens — and sells. The market hits a seven-year low as the Dow dips below 7,000.

The check’s in the mail. The Chicago Sun-Times reports Obama still hasn’t paid the $1.74 million bill his campaign owes his hometown for his victory celebration in Grant’s Park.

Who cares about the facts? During his first address to a joint session of Congress Obama states: “And I believe the nation that invented the automobile cannot walk away from it.” Someone should have told this genius that a German invented the automobile...

No class. In their first meeting, British PM Gordon Brown gave Obama a carved ornamental penholder from the timbers of the anti-slavery ship HMS Gannet. Obama’s gift in return: 25 DVDs that don't work in Europe. His gift a month later to Queen Elizabeth: It’s an iPod full of his own speeches!

Teleprompter President. Obama carries an oversized teleprompter into the White House East Room for a news conference. He opens the session reading prepared remarks, and the device is visible in some camera shots. In an address to the National Academy of Sciences, Obama introduced members of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. Then he introduced them again, thanks to a teleprompter malfunction.

Friendly questions only, please. The media lavishes Obama with praise for holding an innovative town meeting that includes online questions. A few days later, news leaks that only devout Obama supporters were chosen to ask questions from the live audience, however.

Bowing to the Despot. Obama bows low to Saudi King Abdullah. Later, an Obama aide insists: "It wasn't a bow. He grasped his hand with two hands, and he's taller than King Abdullah." Note: Abdullah presides over a dictatorship that outlaws Christianity, forbids women the right to vote or drive a car, and executes people in public squares.

Waiting for Castro. Obama eases travel and remittance restrictions on Cuba, and considers dropping the embargo on Cuba. Fidel Castro later expresses his exasperation, saying Obama "misinterpreted" what his brother Raul had said. Cuba would not be willing to negotiate about human rights, Castro insists.

Tea parties? What tea parties? When untold thousands rally nationwide to protest excessive taxation, the White House tries to ignore the whole issue, hoping it will go away. ABC News reports the president “is unaware of the tea parties."

Cornered by Chavez. At the Summit of the Americas, Venezuelan Dictator Hugo Chavez grabs Obama’s hand and presents him with the anti-American book “The Open Veins of Latin America.”

Can you spell Hypocrisy? In celebration of Earth Day, Obama takes two flights on Air Force One and four on Marine One to reach his ultimate destination, Iowa. He burns up more than 9,000 gallons of fuel in the process.

Obama Bows to the Saudis

Barack Hussein Obama was caught on camera by journalists on Wednesday bowing in deference to Saudi King Abdullah as he greeted him at the opening of the G20 meeting in London, prior to being photographed with British royalty.

Obama later expressed support for the 2002 Saudi Plan in his meeting Thursday with the Saudi monarch. The two also discussed global economic issues and terrorism, White House staff said.

The meeting between Obama and Abdullah was the first face-to-face talk between the two. The meeting created a storm of debate, when pictures and a video were released that appeared to show Obama bowing to the Saudi monarch at the G20 photo-op.

The video clip shows Obama greeting the Saudi monarch and executing a bow before him.

Obama reportedly expressed support for the 2002 Saudi Initiative and had been quoted as saying of the plan, “The Israelis would be crazy not to support this initiative.”

In January of 2009, Saudi officials warned that the U.S. would need to “drastically revise” its Middle East policy, particularly towards Israel, if it wanted to maintain influence in the region.

The Saudis referred to the Middle East policy of former U.S. President George Bush as “sickening,” and accused America of “contributing to the slaughter of innocents” by supporting Israel.

Bush expressed strong support for the 2003 Road Map initiative over the Saudi Plan. The Road Map plan calls for the Israel-PA negotiations process to take place in stages, with Israel dismantling Jewish towns in Judea and Samaria only after the PA begins to fight terrorism.

The Saudi Plan calls on Israel to cede Gaza and all land east of the 1949 armistice line, including much of Jerusalem and the Temple Mount, to the Palestinian Authority. Israel would also be required to cede the strategic Golan Heights region to Syria.

In addition, the plan requires Israel to release all terrorists currently in its prisons, and to offer citizenship to millions of foreign Arabs who say they are descended from Arabs who fled pre-state Israel during the War of Independence.

In exchange for these suicidal measures, Arab states would "normalize" their ties with the Jewish State.

In Israel, the plan has met with little support. Enacting the plan would force roughly 600,000 Israelis from their homes. In addition, senior defense officials have warned that the plan would compromise Israel's security.

Plagued by a faltering economy, a reluctant Europe, increasing resistance at home to his pseudo-socialist agenda and a growing realizations by more and more Americans that electing Obama to the White House was a huge mistake, Hussein is trying to gain momentum by forcing a peace deal in the Middle East and pressuring Israel into suicidal concessions.

If Obama chooses to bow to the Saudi King, he should not be allow to pressure Israel into doing the same.

Hillary leaves the Senate for a post in the Obama Administration -Good Ridance!

In a clear way to settle some political debts, Hillary Clinton appears to be in line for a promotion.

New Yorkers should rejoice, because it means she will no longer be the steward of the Upstate New York economy.

When Hillary Clinton ran for Senate in 2000, she promised economic revitalization for New Yorkers living north of New York City and its suburbs. She even went so far as to promise 200,000 new jobs for the region. Gullible New Yorkers believed her and gave her a chance.
Eight years later, and Hillary Clinton still hasn’t created 200,000 jobs, because Hillary Clinton cannot create jobs. Neither can Big Government or Liberal bureaucrats.

In fact, Upstate New York has lost 20,000 private sector jobs while manufacturing jobs, once the life-blood of Upstate, have declined by 24%. Obviously, she did not fulfill her pledge to New Yorkers.

If anything, Senator Clinton’s failed promises are emblematic of today’s political culture. Not only do we tolerate falsehoods and failed promises, we expect them! Obama is not even the acting President and he is already working on his "exit strategy" out of the grandiose promises he made during the campaign. He is now alerting people that he “may not get there in one year or even in one term.”

Obama's charisma will no doubt, make it difficult to hold him accountable, and he will be able to continue sailing on the winds of "change" for quite a while before most Americans will wake up and understand that they have believing in a mirage.

As for Hillary, it is difficult to discern exactly what she has done since taking office, other than run for higher office, but it is clear she lacks the competence or the political will to energize the New York economy. New Yorkers should be pleased that Hillary will be kicked upstairs, especially not to any position relating to job creation or economic revitalization.

As far as the foreign leaders are concerned, that's another matter....