Netanyahu, Pollard Awaits Obama's Response

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in an unprecedented move at the beginning of January 2011 finally ceded to requests from the Israeli public to write a letter to President Obama. In the letter, Netanyahu urged the President to commute Jonathan J. Pollard's life sentence.

Netanyahu stated in his letter, "since Jonathan Pollard has now spent 25 years in prison, I believe that a new request for clemency is highly appropriate."  Pollard's poor health was another major factor in Netanyahu's decision to write the letter. 

The White House has noted that they recieved the letter and are reviewing it.


Netanyahu's letter marked the first time that an Israeli Prime Minister formally called for Jonathan Pollard to be released. Many prominent U.S. officials have concurred with Netanyahu's sentiment, such as George Shultz, Michael Mukasey, and James Woolsey, and wrote similar letters to the President urging executive clemency.


Since acknowledging that they received Netanyahu's letter, the White House has been mum on the Pollard case and has not stated when the President intends to respond to Netanyahu.


Will President Obama formally respond to Netanyahu's letter or will he keep him hanging like he did the second time that the Israeli Prime Minister visited the White House? It is almost February and no response has been given by the White House. Time will tell.


In the meantime, Netanyahu will be sitting in the waiting room twiddling his thumbs. How is that for another snub.

Netanyahu, Pollard Awaits Obama's Response

Obama calls Republicans 'enemies'

Remember when Obama was above the fray...........

Not anymore. President Obama has become just like the Washington that he vowed to change when running for President in 2008.

On a  Hispanic radio station, Obama urged Latinos to vote Democrat in order to prevail over our 'enemies' meaning to prevail over 'Republican enemies.' He later admitted that calling Republicans enemies was a poor choice of words.

If you thought calling Republicans enemies was over the top, Obama gave a speech recently at a political event and told the crowd that Republicans can join Democrats if they like but they have to "get in the back seat."

Could you imagine if a Republican during the 2008 campaign told Obama to "get in the back seat?" There would be massive protests and total mayhem.

Not so with Obama. He gets a free pass. At least though we can now say that Obama is not above the political rhetoric that has plagued Washington for years. He is now part of the problem.

Obama calls Republicans 'enemies'

Obama Backs Ground Zero Mosque

Its official.

Obama has weighed in on the Ground Zero Mosque controversy.  

Can anyone guess where the President stands on this issue?

No surprise. Obama supports the building of the Mosque next to Ground Zero.

He told reporters during a trip in Florida "Muslims have the right to build a mosque near New York's Ground Zero."

Obama later clarified his remarks by stating that he did not intend to comment on the wisdom of the project.

Either way, Obama is in tank with a Mosque which is funded by radical Islamicists.

And the fallout is just beginning.  GOP Senator John Cornyn predicts that Obama's support for the Mosque could hurt him politically in the Fall elections.

Obama Backs Ground Zero Mosque

Doubting Obama's Sincerity

After two meetings with President Obama which ended with a cold shoulder, Israeli Prime-Minister Netanyahu has finally received his long awaited and much anticipated White House photograph with the U.S. President.   (Mahmoud Abbas had no trouble getting his photograph taken with the President)

Not only did Netanyahu have an opportunity to smile for the cameras, he also was allowed to stay at the coveted Blair House right across the street from the White  House instead of  opting for a standard Washington DC hotel.

Israel's Ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren, joked ahead of the Obama-Netanyahu meeting "There are going to be more photographers there than at the Academy Awards.”

There is no question that the change in the White House treatment of  Netanyahu is in response to an attempt by Obama to lure Jewish voters to the Democrats' side just in time for the November 2010 elections.

Will Jewish voters take the bait?  I would imagine some will unfortunately.

But, the real question is how long will Obama's rosy treatment of  Netanyahu last?

Obama asserted today at his July 6th meeting with the Israeli Prime-Minister that he and Netanyahu are 'friends.'  "The press in Israel and the U.S. like to make a story," Obama retorted.

But, the press did not concoct  a story when President Obama denied Netanyahu photo-op opportunities and left the Israeli entourage stranded in the White House last March. Friends do not treat friends the way Obama has snubbed Netanyahu during his two previous meetings at the White House.

The press was simply doing its job in reporting the news for a change.

While Netanyahu was treated better this time around, his grand entrance to the White House on July 6th did not come without high costs.

If you remember, Netanyahu was scheduled to meet Obama last month at the White House. Obama canceled that meeting following the Flotilla incident telling Netanyahu to "go home." [Netanyahu was in Canada when Obama abruptly canceled the meeting]

In order for Netanyahu to have his July 6th meeting with Obama under cordial terms, Israel had to significantly ease its naval blockade of Gaza which it did to Obama's approval.

Before the next meeting, Obama also expects Israel to extend its settlement freeze in the West Bank which expires in September.

By some chance Israel decides to not extend the settlement freeze; will Obama return to his cold stance and ban photo ops at future meetings between the two leaders?

Will Obama turn on Netanyahu if he builds another bathroom in East Jerusalem?

If so, Netanyahu might want to book his hotel room at the nearby Motel 6 for his next visit to Washington.

Doubting Obama's sincerity is  a logical reaction to the White House's royal treatment of Netanyahu.   Obama played Netanyahu like a fiddle this time securing far reaching compromises from the Israeli leader that were prerequisites for the red carpet treatment at the White House on July 6th.

Even Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority did not have to satisfy prerequisites for his recent meeting with Obama. All Abbas had to say was that the Palestinian Authority is not inciting its people to kill Jews which is an obvious lie and Obama was easily persuaded.

Clearly, Obama does not schedule his meetings with Abbas based on his perception of the Palestinian leader at the time of the meeting.

However, recent history has shown that Obama's treatment of Netanyahu depends on the political climate at the time of the meeting.

Jewish voters should be duly advised not to get their hopes up that Obama is a changed man. His mood swings will dictate how Netanyahu is treated the next time he visits Washington.

Obama could easily turn on Netanyahu at a moment's whim.

Doubting Obama's Sincerity

Obama Doctrine: Talk to Hamas

We were all accustomed to the Bush Doctrine.  The Bush Doctrine pursued the elimination of  terrorism wherever it can be found. Unfortunately, the Bush Doctrine has been replaced with the Obama Doctrine which espouses the complete opposite. Direct engagement with the very terrorists that President Bush vowed to destroy.

Obama Administration officials have praised Hezbollah calling them 'moderate.'  The President has gone out of his way to reach out to Russia  and the European Union who are notorious for powwowing with Arab terrorist-supporting regimes like Syria and Iran.  It is well settled that no love is lost between Obama and Netanyahu Israel's Prime Minister. While Obama has done everything possible to distance himself from Netanyahu, he has done everything possible to cozy up to the Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas and the Saudi King.  It is thus quite clear that Obama has reversed the Bush Doctrine completely. Instead of distancing the U.S. from its enemies and embracing its friends which is what Bush believed, Obama distances the U.S. from its friends and embraces its enemies.

One may assert that it is too strong of a statement to state that Obama is embracing enemies of the United States. Well, the previous statement may not be far off if a report from Worldnetdaily is true.  The report states that Hamas officials claim that members from the Obama Administration have already met with Hamas in Europe in secret meetings and that more meeting are planned for the future.

In the meetings, the U.S. officials asked Hamas to accept a Palestinian state in Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem.  The U.S. officials would even  be willing to make their meetings with Hamas public if they became more moderate.

Apparently, a U.S. official is scheduled to arrive in an undisclosed Arab country in the near future to deliver a telegram to Hamas from the Obama Administration.

The Obama Doctrine of reaching out to enemies of the United States originates from a perspective that the Bush Doctrine harmed U.S. interests at home and abroad by alienating the Arab world.  In retrospect, the Obama Doctrine is  the philosophy that is more harmful to U.S. interests at home and abroad.

By attempting to understand the enemy which the Obama Doctrine stands for,  President Obama only intensifies the enemy's  resolve to attack the United States.  The enemy is not deterred by  tolerance and understanding.  Rather, the American drive to reconcile with terrorist organizations is a huge motivator for Hamas and others who share their thinking.

In actuality, these groups have no desire to come to any consensus with America. Hamas's perceived cooperation in meeting with U.S. officials is in fact their stepping stone for more ruthless attacks against the west.  Hamas will ultimately use its connections with the U.S. as a ruse to enter the United States and push forward with its terrorist agenda.

While many were disenchanted with the Bush Doctrine, the Obama Doctrine is certainly a much scarier proposition. People may not have liked the fact that Bush  supposedly meddled in other countries affairs by pursuing endless wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. However, the crux of the Bush Doctrine centered around protecting America at home and abroad.

The Obama Doctrine may be opposed to pursuing wars as Bush did, but it surely has no proven strategy to keep America safe if it strives to understand the modus operandi of terrorist organizations like Hamas.

Legitimizing a terrorist organization that is responsible for the deaths and maiming of thousands of innocent men, women, and children, is a recipe for disaster that will backfire on the Obama Administration.

Obama Doctrine: Talk to Hamas

All Smiles as Obama Meets with Saudi King

A PICTURE IS WORTH A THOUSAND WORDS 
 














  

CAPTION: Obama is so cozy  with the Saudi King, he forgot to tell the King to "Go Home" to Saudi Arabia and get his facts straight as to why Saudi Arabia has one of the worst human rights crises in the world.  Oh and on another note, Obama canceled his lunch plans with his wife to meet with the Saudi King. After all, the Saudi King has more value to the President than a Jewish Prime-Minister.

All Smiles as Obama Meets with Saudi King

Pundits on the left blast Obama's Speech

President Obama has not had it easy lately with his co-politicos on the left much less with the right. 

Prior to Obama's speech from the oval office, pressure had been mounting on Obama from his own party to show some leadership in responding to one of the worst environmental crises on American soil.  James Carville, the former outspoken Clintonite, has been out there in recent weeks blasting Obama  for not coming down to the Gulf sooner. He notoriously quipped in an interview  on ABC "People are dying out here and the President looks like he is not involved in this [referring to the oil spill]."

Carville's unusual spat with a Democrat President could come from the fact that Obama went on vacation at the height of the oil spill which enraged the native Louisianan.

The onslaught of criticism from the left convinced Obama that he needed to return to the Gulf which he did over the weekend and assert the Administration's position on how to respond to the oil crisis in a prime time speech from the Oval Office.

Surprisingly, liberal pundits have been some of the most vociferous critics of the President's speech.

Chris Matthews, who went ga ga over Obama during the campaign, now says "I do not sense any executive command."

Huffington Post asks "what was the point of that terrible speech?"

Obama supporter Keith Olbermann opined "“It was a great speech if you were on another planet for the last 57 days.”

These sharp critiques from the left is not good news for the Obama Administration who hoped that a Presidential speech could mollify the criticism.

Obama could easily brush aside attacks from the right as partisan politics. He can not ignore similar attacks from his own party.  When the left is critical of a Democrat President,  there has to be validity to the claim that President Obama has not shown himself to be capable of responding forcefully and quickly to the oil crisis which is a blow to the message presented during the campaign that Obama is fit to respond to any crisis of any magnitude.

Whether or not it is true that Obama has failed miserably in responding to the oil crisis, that is the perception of an overwhelming amount of the American people which is all that matters in an election year.

But you should always be the judge.

Here is President Obama's speech to the American people. Do you think Obama lacks executive command?

Let me know what you think.

Pundits on the left blast Obama's Speech

Obama's Unprofessionalism

Throughout U.S. history, Presidents from both parties have used profanity often accidentally over an open mic.

During the 2000 campaign, George W. Bush leaned over to Dick Cheney in what he thought was a private moment. Instead, he called a reporter an A Hole which was caught on TV and broadcasted on the news. Additionally, during a trip to London, President Bush was caught on tape using the word Sh*t to Tony Blair.

The current President has not been very subtle in using profanity. Recently, at the White House Correspondents Dinner, he made a joke about Joe Biden and used the F word.  It had to beeped out by the networks. You know things have gone down hill when CSPAN has to bleep out the President.



Now, the latest profanity moment involving the President occurred with Matt Lauer  of NBC's The Today Show  interviewing Obama about his response to the oil spill crisis.  Incredulously, Obama told Lauer that he has been consulting with experts to find out "whose ass to kick" for causing the oil spill.

We are not talking about a gaffe  here on an open mic or even a camera that catches the President using profanity or a news report that attributes a profanity laced quote to the President. Rather, Obama has sit down with a respected reporter for an interview on a major network and he chooses to use shady unprofessional language to describe his current administration policy on how to deal with the crisis.

Is this how the President of the United States should be acting?  For an individual educated in Ivy league schools, did he not learn more proper language with which to describe his frustrations?

Obama is now sending the message through his unprofessional discourse that it is perfectly acceptable to use profanity in the workplace. How unfortunate!

Obama's Unprofessionalism

The Feinstein Disappointment

As President Obama prepares to welcome Israeli Prime-minister Benjamin Netanyahu to the White House on Tuesday in an another attempt to repair strained relations with the Israeli leader, Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) is urging Obama to pressure Israel to stop so-called settlement activity in East Jerusalem.

Feinstein, who was not one of  the seventy six Senators who signed a letter urging President Obama to ease tensions with Israel in April, is now formulating a letter calling on the Obama Administration to ante up the pressure on the Israeli government.

It remains unclear whether Feinstein will be able to obtain co-signatories in an election year where Jewish support for the Obama Administration and the Democrat Party is at an all time low. Feinstein's letter would only add fuel to the fire.

In a letter to her constituents last month, Feinstein wrote "I have grave concerns about the expansion of Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, and I believe that this issue is a major stumbling block to a peace agreement. In my view, settlement activity should be halted until an agreement is reached.”

The  indisputable fact remains that the Arabs vowed to destroy the State of  Israel and the Jewish people long before the 1967 war when Israel captured Jerusalem. There were homicide bombings which killed innocent Israelis long before Israel controlled Judea and Samaria.  The Arabs were even eager to kill Jews before Israel became a state.

Feinstein is unwilling to accept the reality that even if Israel stopped all so-called settlement activity tomorrow, the Palestinian Authority will never give up on their desire to rid the Middle East of the Jewish people.

Despite the fact the Prime-Minister Netanyahu instituted  a 10 month moratorium on so-called settlement activity in the West Bank  at Obama's urging which is due to expire soon, the Palestinian Authority has been very reluctant to pursue peace and never misses an opportunity to blame the stalemate on Israel without making any concessions of their own.

While the Palestinian Authority remains indifferent to the notion of peace, it should also be duly noted that they openly glorify terrorists, brainwash  their children to kill Jews, and form alliances with Hamas and other terrorist organizations operating in the Gaza region. 

Feinstein's views on Middle East peace are clearly not logical. She is either delusional or has succumbed to her radical leftist ideology which is hostile to the Jewish state.

Indeed, it is mind boggling that Feinstein has no qualms with the Palestinian Authority naming a square after a terrorist who murdered a dozen Israelis. Yet, she has a conniption when Israel builds bathrooms in a Jewish neighborhood in Jerusalem.

The senior Senator from California  is a big disappointment.

The Feinstein Disappointment

Obama Administration calls Jihad a legitimate struggle

Brennan who called Hezbollah "moderate" now says that Jihad is  legitimate tenet of Islam

Obama Administration calls Jihad a legitimate struggle

Ed Koch on the offensive again

 [Ed. note: The following is an editorial written by the former Mayor of New York City Ed Koch]


Koch: Obama Speaks Softly And Carries No Stick At All

We are at war with radical Islam, and that war will go on for many years.

For me, the question is this: Will the secular Western civilization shared by America and Europe, which allows us to enjoy life and its creature comforts, still be standing at the end of that war? Or will radical Islam, with an aggressive culture that treasures martyrdom and death over life, prevail?

The vast majority of Muslims, of course, are peace-loving. The fanaticism found among the Wahhabists of Saudi Arabia is not found in many of the countries where a billion, 400 million Muslims live. Nevertheless, we know that radical Islamists want to convert us to their faith, either voluntarily or, if necessary, by force. Among the Islamist radicals there is a special hatred of Jews and Hindus and, to a lesser extent, of Christians. The hatred of Jews is such that some of the leaders of radical groups have called for the killing of Jewish civilians all over the world. For some, the Muslim rule is to permit Jews and Christians - as monotheists - to practice their religions, provided that they accept the supremacy of Islam and pay a poll tax - so described by Bernard Lewis, America's foremost scholar on Islam.

Mr. Lewis states: "This tolerance is limited to monotheists and recipients of what Islam recognizes as a revelation. It does not apply in any circumstance to those who are seen as polytheists and idolaters. For them the rule was indeed conversion or death, though the latter was rarely enforced and in the past was often commuted to enslavement. The Wahhabi demand, as far as I know, is not that Christians and Jews convert to Islam, but that they accept the supremacy of Islam and the rule of the Muslim state. On that condition, they may continue in the practice of their religion."

All this is by way of preface to a current controversy here in New York City concerning the construction of a mosque two blocks from Ground Zero at the World Trade Center site where near 3,000 people lost their lives in acts of terror perpetrated by 19 Muslim hijackers, 15 of whom were from Saudi Arabia, who deliberately flew two planes into the twin towers.

There are those who, understandably but nevertheless in error, object to the construction of this mosque, believing its presence would insult the memory of the victims of the terror. In my opinion, and I believe the opinion of many others, including the local community planning board and the local elected political leaders, it would sully the good name of the United States and New York City were the members of the mosque, which is permissible under existing zoning laws, prohibited from constructing it. While no one can be sure what activities will take place there, that is true of any religious institution. It also follows that none may violate the law with impunity.

What distinguishes the United States is our pluralism and tolerance for minority groups, religions of every persuasion and acceptance of the rights of those with policies and philosophies different than the prevailing views of the majority, provided they are non-violent and observe the law.

Having said that, and believing in our tolerance for others, I also believe we must be willing to defend our people and country against all attacks that are violent - tantamount to war - as well as those attacks that are unfair and intended to humble and denigrate our nation. It is infuriating to see Turkey, an actual NATO ally, and Brazil, a neighbor and trade partner here in the Western hemisphere, collude with Iran, which has said through its president that it wants the US to disappear and makes clear every day its enmity and threats directed at us and our ally, Israel. It is infuriating that North Korea threatens the world with its nuclear and missile arsenal and sinks a South Korean destroyer with a torpedo that an examining commission found to have North Korean markings, and no immediate military retaliatory action is taken, out of fear of consequences.

If Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the US Congress had failed to assist in the defense of Great Britain in its war with Germany, and Great Britain had gone down to defeat because early on we refused to become Great Britain's supplier of ships and other war materials out of fear of the consequences, we here in the US might be speaking German today instead of English. We would certainly no longer be the great and sovereign nation we are.

Have we lost the will to stand up to the bullies of the world? The administration points with pride to the fact that it is proceeding with sanctions against Iran at the Security Council and that it succeeded in bringing Russia and China to the point where they too have agreed to vote for sanctions. To accomplish this, however, the US had to agree to Russia's delivering arms to Iran, e.g., an anti-aircraft system that would be used to shoot down US and Israeli planes that might in the future seek to eliminate Iran's nuclear facilities. With respect to China and getting its consent to vote with us, we dropped sanction measures that would have crippled Iran's banking and financial institutions and prohibited the sale of gasoline to Iran, which has no conversion facilities, which would have devastated its economy.

Some will say that pointing out these failures of will is jingoistic. I believe these failures to stand up for allies and most importantly to stand up for ourselves is why we are taken less seriously by nations throughout the world than should be the case. When others fully respected us, we were able to keep the world at peace. We are losing that ability with each passing day, as we demonstrate our unwillingness to teach the bullies of the world the lessons they deserve.

Speak softly and carry a big stick, Teddy Roosevelt said. President Obama speaks apologetically and carries no stick at all. No wonder North Korea torpedoed that South Korean warship, something they would not have done in all probability if China had not quietly approved. No wonder Brazil and Turkey thumb their noses at us. We have become a laughingstock.

Ed Koch on the offensive again

Holder can not say the word 'radical Islam'

Holder can not say the word 'radical Islam'

Jewish Support for Obama Eroding

BREAKING NEWS

President Obama's assault on Israel is costing him votes in the Jewish community.

The McLaughlin Group recently conducted a Poll in the Jewish community asking the participants whether they would (a) vote for President Obama again or (b) whether they consider voting for someone else. 42% said they would vote for Obama and 46% said they would consider voting for someone else. 12% said they did not know or refused to answer.

A further breakdown on the poll results can be seen here.

This is a significant development  because the Jewish community has been loyal supporters of  Democrats and they are credited for helping Barack Obama become President in 2008. A whopping 78% of Jewish voters or perhaps more by some people's accounts voted for Obama.

If Obama loses Jewish support as this poll suggest he will, Obama will have a tough time getting re-elected in 2012.

Jewish Support for Obama Eroding

To Freeze or not to Freeze

Ever since the recent fallout in U.S.-Israel relations over Israel's announcement that it would build 1,600 homes in East Jerusalem, Netanyahu and Obama have been going back and forth in sending mixed messages about whether there has been an agreement by the Israeli government to halt all East Jerusalem construction in order to appease both the Palestinians and Obama himself.

President Obama had insisted that Netanyahu cease all construction in East Jerusalem as a gesture to the Palestinians in order to start the Proximity Talks and as a means of repairing the much talked about rift in U.S.-Israel relations. 

In order to appease Obama and the Palestinians, the Associated Press reported towards the end of April that Netanyahu relented on his promise not to stop  building in East Jerusalem.

However, the Mayor of Jerusalem told the media during his visit to Washington a few weeks ago that building in East Jerusalem had not stopped.

Nevertheless, George Mitchell announced on Sunday that Israel agreed to a halt of all East Jerusalem Construction for a period of two years.

A day after Mitchell's euphoric announcement, Netanyahu adamantly told his Likud loyalists that there had been no agreement with the Americans to stop East Jerusalem construction and that construction in East Jerusalem would continue.

Someone is clearly dropping the ball here and playing diplomatic games.

One explanation for the  mixed messages is that Netanyahu has to cater to the opinions of the Israeli public and in particular the more hawkish wing of his coalition government which is overwhelmingly opposed to any halting of East Jerusalem Construction.  By Netanyahu making public statements in Israel which satisfies the more hawkish elements of the Israeli electorate while  privately telling Obama that he intends to stop East Jerusalem Construction, Netanyahu can stay on good terms with the Obama Administration and his own government.

On the other hand, George Mitchell and the Obama Administration have an interest in satisfying the Palestinians. It is thus also plausible that Mitchell is claiming that Netanyahu has agreed to halt East Jerusalem construction when in fact he has not.

Either way these conflicting statements about whether or not there has been a halting of East Jerusalem Construction, is counterproductive.

If Mitchell is going to make baseless statements claiming that Netanyahu has agreed to halt East Jerusalem Construction, Netanyahu will be forced to refute those claims to his own party in order to keep his government intact. There is no sensible outcome in causing an uproar in the Israeli political scene to score points with the Palestinians. Otherwise, Obama will be seen by many as the President who meddled in Israeli affairs which will have political consequences for the Obama Administration.

However, if Netanyahu is the one who is playing the diplomatic games and Mitchell has correctly stated that Netanyahu did agree to halt East Jerusalem Construction, Netanyahu will be viewed as being untrustworthy and not consistent.

Quite frankly, Netanyahu should set the record straight in both his public appearances and private conversations with the Americans that Israel will continue to build in Jerusalem regardless of any criticisms by the Obama Administration as Israel has an absolute right to build in its own capital city.

As long as these conflicting statements continue to make headlines, people are going to wonder who is telling the truth which is only bad politics for both Netanyahu and Obama.

To Freeze or not to Freeze

News Summary

Quick News Roundabout

1. Ahmadenijad in NY:  Sanctions Won't Stop Us
2.  John Bolton: Obama damages Israeli security
3.  Austria Backs Iran
4. Abbas calls the Israeli government 'Extremist'
5. Abbas illegally opens up offices in East Jerusalem

News Summary

News Summary

Your Quick News Roundabout 
1. President Obama considers abandoning Israel at the U.N.
2. Mahmoud Abbas will ask for the Jordan Valley, East Jerusalem in Proximity Talks.
3. President Obama threatens to impose a solution on Israel if proximity talks fail.
4. President Obama and Hosni Mubarak of Egypt work together to call for a Mideast nuclear free zone.
5. Obama Administration has been acting on behalf of the Palestinian Authority in negotiations.

News Summary

Quote of the day

Radio Host Rush Limbaugh

"Obama says anybody whose great-grandparents were in Arizona before it was a state has a right to walk on in there, and yet the Jews were in Israel thousands of years before any other religion, and Obama wants to deny them the right to build in Jerusalem ."

Quote of the day

Sanctions Begin At Home

Just like the old adage "Charity Begins at Home," well how about a new expression appropriate for the times that we live in, "Sanctions  Begin at Home."

Mahmoud Ahmadenijad, the Iranian leader who is also referred to as a modern-day Hitler, has been routinely afforded the opportunity to travel to the U.S. for U.N. Conferences where he can preach his anti-American anti-Zionist anti-Israel rhetoric and make a mockery out of his hosts who so irresponsibly allow him into the country.

The Bush Administration gave him unfettered access to New York and the Obama Administration has continued the tradition.

Ahmadenijad requested a visa from the U.S. to come to New York to attend a U.N. Conference next week oddly enough on non-proliferation where he can once again deceive the  public into thinking that Iran does not have nuclear weapons just as the Nazis led the Red Cross to believe that the Jews were playing an innocent game of  soccer at Auschwitz.

Instead of  showing the world that the Obama Administration means business in procuring sanctions  through the ultimate sanction by not allowing Ahmadenijad into the country, Obama has decided to grant Ahmadenijad's visa request.

Would it not have sent an earth shattering message to Ahmadenijad had he been denied the opportunity to attend a conference which he will only use as a platform to further his psychopathic propaganda? How can anyone believe  that Obama is serious about procuring sanctions when he can not even take the bold step of denying a simple visa request from a leader who does not deserve any international legitimacy whatsoever?

Sanctions Begin at Home, Mr. President.  You can not expect the Chinese or the Russians to go along with your plan of  sanctions that "bite" if you do not have the backbone to block Ahmadenijad from setting foot on the very territory that he seeks to destroy.

Sanctions Begin At Home

Mayor of Jerusalem Denied a Meeting

The Obama snub of  the State of Israel is not expected to cease any time soon. Once again, an elected Israeli official has been given the cold treatment. Last month it was Israeli Prime-Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Now, it is the Mayor of Jerusalem.

Mayor of Jerusalem Nir Barkat is in Washington meeting with members of Congress. He has been critical of the Obama Administration's demand that Israel halt all East Jerusalem construction in Jewish neighborhoods but not Arab neighborhoods.

Barkat stated "I think in Washington or anywhere in the states its illegal, it’s anti constitutional, to ask who’s the owner, if he’s Jewish or Muslim.  You’re not allowed to discriminate, by race, by color, or by religion. And I’m surprised at the demand and the request to hint to us that we must discriminate…It’s against the law.”

Incensed by Mayor Barkat's criticism, Hillary Clinton and George Mitchell refused to meet with him during his visit to Washington.

President Obama has no problem telling Arizona that they are discriminating against illegal aliens. Yet, when the Mayor of Jerusalem criticizes him for discriminating against Jewish residents in East Jerusalem; Obama cries foul. Go figure.

Mayor of Jerusalem Denied a Meeting

Call the DNC Today

President Obama has scored a victory in his campaign to isolate Israel.

Prime-Minister Netanyahu has reportedly caved into Obama's unrelenting pressure and has agreed to halt all East Jerusalem construction.

The President thinks that he can pressure Israel and still expect our votes in the 2010 and 2012 elections.

For too long, our politicians have grown to think that they can do whatever they want because we will still vote for them anyway. It is time that our elected officials be told once and for all that there will be significant  political consequences if the establishment in Washington turns a blind eye to the views and opinions of the electorate by implementing policies which contradict our beliefs and sensitivities.

In terms of President Obama's pressuring of Israel, our grassroots campaign must continue to remind. President Obama that the American people will not allow his administration to discredit the State of Israel.

Please pick up the phone and call the Democratic National Committee at 202-863-8000 during regular business hours at your earliest convenience.

When the staff member answers your call, kindly tell that person in the most respectful terms that you are dissatisfied with the manner in which the President is pressuring Israel and that if he continues to mistreat Israel or its Prime-Minister, the President and the Democrat Party will loose support in the 2010 and 2012 elections.

Get your friends to call. The more calls that we get, the greater impact that we will have in changing the President's policies on Israel.

Call the DNC Today