87 Senators Sign Letter to Obama

On June 21, 2010, eighty seven Senators signed a letter to President Obama affirming their support for the State of Israel and in particular Israel's right to defend herself. Unfortunately, Israel's right to defend herself has been questioned  and disregarded  by the international community as a result of  the fallout following the Flotilla incident.

The letter, sponsored by Senators Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell, contained the following language:

"We write to affirm our support for our strategic partnership with Israel, and encourage you to continue to do so before international organizations such as the United Nations. The United States has traditionally stood with Israel because it is in our national security interest and must continue to do so."

The entire letter can be read in full here.

A similar letter was signed by seventy six Senators in April urging President Obama to stand with Israel after the President snubbed Prime-Minister Netanyahu during his last visit to the White House.

This latest letter  had a more conciliatory tone which could explain why more Senators signed the letter this time.

Nevertheless, thirteen Senators did not sign the June 21st letter.

Here are the list of the Senators who did not sign the letter:

 1) Jim Webb (D- VA)
 2) Robert Byrd (D-WV)
 3) John Kerry (D-MA)
 4) Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
 5) Jeff Merkley (D-OR)
 6) Tom Udall (D-NM)
 7) Daniel Akaka (D-HI)
 8) Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)
 9) Christoper Dodd (D-CT)
10) Tom Harkin (D-IA)
11) Bernard Sanders (I-VT)
12) Jim Bunning  (R-KY)
13) Judd Gregg (R-NH)

Notice more D's in the non-signers category that R's.

87 Senators Sign Letter to Obama

Republican Group: GOP will take over the House

In an exclusive interview with Kauffmans Commentary, the  Senior Administrator of the Young Republican Network Ira Geiger stated that the GOP will likely take over the House in the 2010 elections.

         YRN's Ira Geiger pictured with New Jersey's Lt. Governor

Geiger is less certain about the Republicans' chances of  gaining control of the U.S. Senate. At the current moment, Geiger believes that the Republican party has a 50% chance of regaining the Senate.

According to Geiger, the prospect of the GOP gaining control of the Senate all depends on whether the Republican Party can win Senate seats in New York, Connecticut,  California, and  possibly Wisconsin and Washington. Republican Senate candidates in Delaware, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Illinois, Arkansas, Nevada, and Colorado are all expected to win in November which means that the Republicans will pick up eight seats and would only need to win  at least three more seats to win back the U.S. Senate assuming that the Republicans can retain Florida and Ohio.

Ira Geiger also told Kauffmans Commentary that he believes young Republicans between the ages of 18 to 40 will have a greater influence in this year's election than in previous elections. "People have woken up. They took 2008 for granted," explained Geiger.  He also reported that he has received emails from Democrats who are now supporting Republican candidates which is a new phenomena.

Geiger has been active in Republican politics for many years and has worked on the former Maryland Governor Robert Ehrlich's gubernatorial campaign in 2006 and most recently on Chris Christie's successful gubernatorial campaign in New Jersey.

The Young Republican Network was originally  founded after the 2008 election. It currently serves as a grassroots website which reaches out to young professionals, students, entrepreneurs, and young business leaders informing them of the different Republican campaigns in the 2010 election cycle.

An estimated 25,000 people a day log onto the Young Republican Network's website to learn about the Republican candidates who are running in this year's election.

Republican Group: GOP will take over the House

The Battle Begins

Just seven minutes after President Obama signed health care reform into law, thirteen attorney generals filed suit in Ferderal Court in Pensacola, Florida claiming Obama's health care Bill is unconstitutional.

The lawsuit states: "The Constitution nowhere authorizes the United States to mandate, either directly or under threat of penalty, that all citizens and legal residents have qualifying health care coverage."

Joining Florida in the suit were South Carolina, Nebraska, Texas, Michigan, Utah, Pennsylvania, Alabama, South Dakota, Idaho, Washington, Colorado and Louisiana.

More suits are likely to follow.

The Battle Begins

Minority Leader John Boehner's Fiery Speech

Minority Leader John Boehner's Fiery Speech

Pressured Politics Wins The Day

Just when people thought the Democrats failed in their battle to pass health care legislation after Scott Brown won Teddy Kennedy's old seat a few months ago;  they  now have to face the fact  that the Democrats have pulled a fast one on the American people with the passing of historic health care legislation.

How did it happen? Well, President Obama, Nancy Pelosi & Co. were so committed to pass health care despite the overwhelming disapproval of the American people that they would do anything to get health care passed even if it meant ignoring the Constitution or abusing their power.

In the days before tonight's vote, Obama twisted arms, threatened Democrat holdouts that they would loose their chairmanships or even face the prospect of losing support from the Democrat party in the 2010 midterm elections.

Unfortunately, politicians are susceptible to threats of not prevailing in a reelection campaign from their own party prompting many to change their votes from No to Yes under threat of repercussions from the Obama White House.

The last holdouts, Bart Stupak and his delegation of pro-Life Democrats who were so adamant about voting against the Bill because it funded abortions, ultimately decided to vote Yes for the Bill after Obama promised to sign an executive order that federal dollars would not be used to fund abortions.  Stupak voting yes is what put the Democrats over the edge.

So much for principled leadership.

While Obama scored a major victory with the passing of the health care legislation in the House, he may very well have put a nail in the coffin of his party's chances of maintaining majority in the House and the Senate. Certainly, the Democrat party will be facing losses in the 2010 election.

But for Obama, he doesn't care as long as his agenda gets through even if it is to the  detriment of the American people.

The real question that is looming is what legal challenges will emerge to Obama's health care bill. Many attorney generals, specifically Florida's attorney general Bill McCollum, are already bracing the filing of a lawsuit contesting Obama's health care Bill on constitutional grounds.


The American people could still get the last laugh.

Pressured Politics Wins The Day

Bleak future for the dems

Here is a tentative  list of the top Democrats so far not running in the 2010 elections

1) Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut
2) Sen. Byron Dorgan of North Dakota
3) Sen. Roland Burris of Illinois ( Well he did not have much of a shot anyway)
4) Arkansas Congressman Marion Berry
5)Arkansas Rep. Vic Snyder
6) Rep. Bart Gordon of Tennessee
7)Rep. Dennis Moore of Kansas
8)Rep. John Tanner of Tenessee
9)Rep. Brian Baird of Washington
10)Sen. Ted Kaufman of Delaware
11)And, now Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana

And for all of the resignations, there are several Democrats who are running like Sen. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas who are in danger of losing their seats to Republicans.

2010 is not looking like it will be a good year for the Democrats. The Republicans surely know what its like to not have a good year after President Obama was elected in 2008. But 2010 may end up being a recovery year for the Republicans.

Bleak future for the dems

David Axelrod criticizes Justice Alito

President Obama's Senior Adviser, David Axelrod, said he was not surprised by Justice Alito's response to Obama's criticism of the Supreme Court's recent decision that permits donations from corporations to political candidates essentially torpedoing campaign finance reform. Axelrod asserted that we have been accustomed to all kinds of "unusual outbursts." (Axelrod was also referring to Congressman Joe Wilson's "you lie" comment during Obama's last Congressional address) Because of this trend of "unusual outbursts," Axelrod maintains that it is no longer surprising when a politician reacts negatively to the President's speech.

Obama issued his criticism of the Supreme Court decision during his State of the Union Speech in the presence of the Supreme Court justices who were only a few yards away from him.

Obama stated:
"With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests –- including foreign corporations –- to spend without limit in our elections.  (Applause.)  I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities.  (Applause.)  They should be decided by the American people.  And I'd urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems."

Apparently, Justice Alito who disagreed with the President's analysis of the decision, mouthed the words "not true" and appeared to be visibly upset by Obama's reference to the decision. Justice Alito took issue with Obama's statement that foreign corporations will now be allowed to donate to political candidates in the U.S.

Of course, the media including David Axelrod, are only  focusing on Justice Alito's response to Obama's criticism of the Supreme Court decision.  Axerlod is incorrectly insinuating that Alito's response is an unusual outburst in the same category as Joe Wilson's "you lie" comment. The truth is that Alito probably was so shocked that a President would criticize a Supreme Court decision in his State of the Union Speech.  Even so, he merely shook his head and did not interrupt the President's speech like Wilson did. The two instances are not comparable.

Regardless of how you feel about Justice Alito or the Supreme Court decision,  it was completely unprofessional and downright condescending for President Obama to criticize a Supreme Court decision in the presence of Supreme Court Justices.  Talking about an "unusual outburst." It was most unusual and unprecedented for a President to engage in such a course of action in a State of Union Speech. No other President has ever done such a thing before and the media has the audacity to focus on Alito's response and largely ignore whether it was appropriate for a President to attack Supreme Court Justices in their presence.

President Obama should issue an apology to the Supreme Court Justices and take responsibility for his actions.

David Axelrod criticizes Justice Alito

George Mitchell opines that aid to Israel could be reduced

George Mitchell, Barack Obama's Envoy to the Middle East, caused a stir  in Israel this week when he  said on U.S. Television in an interview with Charlie Rose that the Obama Administration  could reduce military aid to Israel in an effort to extract more Israeli concessions to the Palestinians. Rarely do you ever hear an administration official suggest that aid to Palestinians could be reduced if they continue to support acts of terrorism against Israelis.

In the meantime, Senators Joe Lieberman and John McCain are in Israel to calm Israeli fears that U.S. aid to Israel might be cut. The Senators stated during their visit. that Congress would never approve any cut of U.S. loan guarantees to Israel.  Senators John Thume and John Barrasso seconded Lieberman's and McCain's reassurances stating that "any attempt to force Israel to negotiate by denying Israel’s support will not pass the U.S. Congress."

George Mitchell opines that aid to Israel could be reduced