Sunday, April 18, 2010
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Senators sign letter to Obama
76 Senators signed a letter to President Obama urging him to ease recent tensions with the State of Israel.
The letter stated: "We write to urge you to do everything possible to ensure that recent tensions between the U.S. and Israeli administrations over the untimely announcement of future housing construction in East Jerusalem do not derail Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations or harm U.S.-Israel relations. We also urge you to reaffirm the unbreakable bonds that tie the United States and Israel together and to diligently work to defuse current tensions. The Israeli governments and U.S. governments will undoubtedly, at times, disagree over policy decisions. But disagreements should not adversely affect our national interests."
The letter can be seen in full here.
Of the 76 Senators who signed the letter, most who signed the letter were Republican with a significant amount of Democrat Senators not signing including Harry Reid and John Kerry.
Here are a list of the Senators who did not sign the letter.
1)Max Baucus (D- MT)
2)Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)
3)Sherrod Brown (D-OH)
4)Robert Byrd (D-WV)
5)Bob Corker (R-TN)
6)Chris Dodd (D-CT)
7)Byron Dorgan (D-ND)
8)Richard Durbin (D-IL)
9)Michael Enzi (R-WY)
10)Diane Feinstein (D-CA)
11)Judd Gregg (R-NH)
12)Tom Harkin (D-IA)
13)Edward Kaufman (D-DE)
14)John Kerry (D-MA)
15 Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
16)Richard Lugar (R-IN)
17)Claire McCaskill(D-MO)
18)Jack Reed (D-RI)
19)Harry Reid (D-NV)
20)John Rockefeller(D-WV)
21)Bernard Sanders (I-VT)
22)Mark Udall (D-CO)
23)Tom Udall (D-NM)
24)Jim Webb (D-VA)
[Ed. Note] If you are a constituent of any of the above Senators who did not sign the letter and want to voice your displeasure to them for not doing so, contact their Washington DC offices via phone or fax. The more calls or faxes that they get, the quicker they will get the message that supporting Israel is a requirement for getting re-elected in the next election.
The letter stated: "We write to urge you to do everything possible to ensure that recent tensions between the U.S. and Israeli administrations over the untimely announcement of future housing construction in East Jerusalem do not derail Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations or harm U.S.-Israel relations. We also urge you to reaffirm the unbreakable bonds that tie the United States and Israel together and to diligently work to defuse current tensions. The Israeli governments and U.S. governments will undoubtedly, at times, disagree over policy decisions. But disagreements should not adversely affect our national interests."
The letter can be seen in full here.
Of the 76 Senators who signed the letter, most who signed the letter were Republican with a significant amount of Democrat Senators not signing including Harry Reid and John Kerry.
Here are a list of the Senators who did not sign the letter.
1)Max Baucus (D- MT)
2)Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)
3)Sherrod Brown (D-OH)
4)Robert Byrd (D-WV)
5)Bob Corker (R-TN)
6)Chris Dodd (D-CT)
7)Byron Dorgan (D-ND)
8)Richard Durbin (D-IL)
9)Michael Enzi (R-WY)
10)Diane Feinstein (D-CA)
11)Judd Gregg (R-NH)
12)Tom Harkin (D-IA)
13)Edward Kaufman (D-DE)
14)John Kerry (D-MA)
15 Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
16)Richard Lugar (R-IN)
17)Claire McCaskill(D-MO)
18)Jack Reed (D-RI)
19)Harry Reid (D-NV)
20)John Rockefeller(D-WV)
21)Bernard Sanders (I-VT)
22)Mark Udall (D-CO)
23)Tom Udall (D-NM)
24)Jim Webb (D-VA)
[Ed. Note] If you are a constituent of any of the above Senators who did not sign the letter and want to voice your displeasure to them for not doing so, contact their Washington DC offices via phone or fax. The more calls or faxes that they get, the quicker they will get the message that supporting Israel is a requirement for getting re-elected in the next election.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
The Future of Jewish Democrats
Non-Jewish Republicans and even Jewish Republicans constantly ponder the question, why do Jews flock to the Democrat party? What is it that they like about the Democrat party? (Ed. note: Orthodox Jews traditionally are Republican) After all, the Democrat party has moved so far to the left and is the home to Michael Moore, Jimmy Carter, Al Sharpton, Dennis Kucinich, and other radical environmentalists who espouse anti-Israel views.
If Israel is such a major issue for the Jewish community as it rightfully should be, why would Jews back the Democrats? The truth is that there was a time when Democrats were Pro-Israel (LBJ, Harry Truman, JFK, RFK, Scoop Jackson) And there was a time when Republicans were not so friendly to the Jews (Pat Buchanan, Bush I, James Baker etc.)
The main answer to these legitimate questions is that social issues predominantly drives the Jewish connection to the Democrat party as most secular Jews are pro-choice, against the dominance of religion in society, for gun control, and therefore can not be single issue "Israel voters" even though Israel is an issue that concerns them.
( Please note that there is no attempt here to disparage secular Jews; this is merely an attempt to explain their reasoning for backing the Democrats despite all indications for them not to do so. Certainly, everyone is entitled to their own opinion no matter how misguided it may be)
However, slowly but surely, many Jewish Democrats are finally realizing that the Democrat Party is no longer their home. We started seeing a Jewish trend towards the Republicans with the Reagan administration's close ties to the Jewish state. As President George W. Bush became known as one of the most Pro-Israel Presidents in U.S. history, more Jewish Democrats voted for Bush II in 2004 although Kerry still got the bulk of the Jewish vote.
Surprisingly, 80% of Jews voted for Obama in 2008 despite his 20 year association with a radical anti-semitic preacher named Jeremiah Wright.
However, for the first time, the iceberg may have fallen over causing tons of Jewish Democrats to start packing towards red country.
It would have to take a radical guy like Barack Obama to shift the Jewish voting patterns. Jewish voters are finally realizing that Obama is so entrenched with the Muslim world that he is willing to sell out Israel and the lives of more than six million Jews living in Israel in order to appease the Iranians.
Just a few observations which leads me to believe that we will be seeing significantly more Jewish voters electing Republicans in 2010 and 2012.
The Former Mayor of New York, Ed Koch, a well known Jewish Democrat who usually has a good pulse on the views of the American Jewish community recently came out against Obama. Koch endorsed Bush II in 2004 and then went back to the Democrats in 2008 endorsing Obama. He now says that he is "getting off the Obama train because of Obama's mistreatment of the State of Israel. You rarely hear such a prominent Democrat in New York politics so vocally express his disgust for a Democrat President.
It takes the radical views of Barack Obama to spur Koch to do just that and I would imagine he's bringing a lot of Jewish Democrats with him off the train.
Another observation which many people do not yet know about and is a breaking development.
Kauffmans Commentary recently sponsored an "Israel Deserves Respect" Petition to President Obama. Kcom recieved quite a few responses from former Obama supporters who are outraged at the manner in which Obama disrespected Prime-minister Netanyahu when he visited the White House last March. Some of these former Obama suppporters were Jewish Americans who are now regretting their vote.
This is only the beginning of the Republican tent opening a little larger to welcome disenfranchised Jewish voters running away from Barack Obama and the Democrats. Stay tuned for more articles on this topic.
If you are reading this article and are a Jewish Democrat, let me know what you think. Will you be voting for Barack Obama in 2012?
If Israel is such a major issue for the Jewish community as it rightfully should be, why would Jews back the Democrats? The truth is that there was a time when Democrats were Pro-Israel (LBJ, Harry Truman, JFK, RFK, Scoop Jackson) And there was a time when Republicans were not so friendly to the Jews (Pat Buchanan, Bush I, James Baker etc.)
The main answer to these legitimate questions is that social issues predominantly drives the Jewish connection to the Democrat party as most secular Jews are pro-choice, against the dominance of religion in society, for gun control, and therefore can not be single issue "Israel voters" even though Israel is an issue that concerns them.
( Please note that there is no attempt here to disparage secular Jews; this is merely an attempt to explain their reasoning for backing the Democrats despite all indications for them not to do so. Certainly, everyone is entitled to their own opinion no matter how misguided it may be)
However, slowly but surely, many Jewish Democrats are finally realizing that the Democrat Party is no longer their home. We started seeing a Jewish trend towards the Republicans with the Reagan administration's close ties to the Jewish state. As President George W. Bush became known as one of the most Pro-Israel Presidents in U.S. history, more Jewish Democrats voted for Bush II in 2004 although Kerry still got the bulk of the Jewish vote.
Surprisingly, 80% of Jews voted for Obama in 2008 despite his 20 year association with a radical anti-semitic preacher named Jeremiah Wright.
However, for the first time, the iceberg may have fallen over causing tons of Jewish Democrats to start packing towards red country.
It would have to take a radical guy like Barack Obama to shift the Jewish voting patterns. Jewish voters are finally realizing that Obama is so entrenched with the Muslim world that he is willing to sell out Israel and the lives of more than six million Jews living in Israel in order to appease the Iranians.
Just a few observations which leads me to believe that we will be seeing significantly more Jewish voters electing Republicans in 2010 and 2012.
The Former Mayor of New York, Ed Koch, a well known Jewish Democrat who usually has a good pulse on the views of the American Jewish community recently came out against Obama. Koch endorsed Bush II in 2004 and then went back to the Democrats in 2008 endorsing Obama. He now says that he is "getting off the Obama train because of Obama's mistreatment of the State of Israel. You rarely hear such a prominent Democrat in New York politics so vocally express his disgust for a Democrat President.
It takes the radical views of Barack Obama to spur Koch to do just that and I would imagine he's bringing a lot of Jewish Democrats with him off the train.
Another observation which many people do not yet know about and is a breaking development.
Kauffmans Commentary recently sponsored an "Israel Deserves Respect" Petition to President Obama. Kcom recieved quite a few responses from former Obama supporters who are outraged at the manner in which Obama disrespected Prime-minister Netanyahu when he visited the White House last March. Some of these former Obama suppporters were Jewish Americans who are now regretting their vote.
This is only the beginning of the Republican tent opening a little larger to welcome disenfranchised Jewish voters running away from Barack Obama and the Democrats. Stay tuned for more articles on this topic.
If you are reading this article and are a Jewish Democrat, let me know what you think. Will you be voting for Barack Obama in 2012?
Monday, April 12, 2010
Obama's Failed Rhetoric
Today we honored the memories of the six million Jews including 1.5 million children who perished in the Holocaust and the many others who survived but were irreparably damaged.
Ever year as we commemorate the Holocaust at this time, there is a memorial ceremony at Israel's Holocaust Museum known as Yad Vashem. In addition, leaders all over the world annually issue proclamations condemning the Holocaust and also make statements remembering the victims.
In recent years, these statements have become all the more significant because the world is facing another Holocaust. This time the potential is for a nuclear Holocaust.
Of course, I am talking about Iran.
Unfortunately, despite the now famous expression "Never Again," the Holocaust could very well happen again precisely because our leaders are making statements that they do not intend to keep or enforce. Apparently, the term "Never Again," which was repeatedly drummed into our lexicon to assuage international guilt for universal inaction to prevent the Holocaust, has lost its impact.
In the years before the Holocaust, the warning signs of the pending Holocaust were written on the wall but for whatever reason no one decided to take them seriously enough to prevent the Holocaust from happening.
Now, we are faced with those same warning signs in a modern day era and once again no is taking Iran's threat to obtain a nuclear weapon serious enough to take action to prevent it from carrying out its nefarious plot.
We hear from our leaders how much they are opposed to Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon. But, where is the action?
History may be doomed to repeat itself.
In an ironic twist, President Obama commemorated the Holocaust by stating that the memories of the victims "serve as a constant reminder to honor their legacy by renewing our commitment to prevent genocide, and to confront anti-Semitism and prejudice in all of its forms"
President Obama, you have an opportunity to prevent genocide right now by confronting Iran. Yet, your administration remains opposed to Israel launching a military strike against Iran. In other words, you would rather have Israel tie their hands behind their backs and wait for a nuclear bomb to hit the streets of Tel Aviv or Jerusalem in the event that sanctions are not effective which they will not be in all likelihood.
How are you renewing your commitment to preventing genocide when you are opposed to Israel exercising its right to defend itself against the very genocide that you seem to be opposed to in your statement on Holocaust Remembrance Day.
This is just another example of Obama's failed rhetoric.
Ever year as we commemorate the Holocaust at this time, there is a memorial ceremony at Israel's Holocaust Museum known as Yad Vashem. In addition, leaders all over the world annually issue proclamations condemning the Holocaust and also make statements remembering the victims.
In recent years, these statements have become all the more significant because the world is facing another Holocaust. This time the potential is for a nuclear Holocaust.
Of course, I am talking about Iran.
Unfortunately, despite the now famous expression "Never Again," the Holocaust could very well happen again precisely because our leaders are making statements that they do not intend to keep or enforce. Apparently, the term "Never Again," which was repeatedly drummed into our lexicon to assuage international guilt for universal inaction to prevent the Holocaust, has lost its impact.
In the years before the Holocaust, the warning signs of the pending Holocaust were written on the wall but for whatever reason no one decided to take them seriously enough to prevent the Holocaust from happening.
Now, we are faced with those same warning signs in a modern day era and once again no is taking Iran's threat to obtain a nuclear weapon serious enough to take action to prevent it from carrying out its nefarious plot.
We hear from our leaders how much they are opposed to Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon. But, where is the action?
History may be doomed to repeat itself.
In an ironic twist, President Obama commemorated the Holocaust by stating that the memories of the victims "serve as a constant reminder to honor their legacy by renewing our commitment to prevent genocide, and to confront anti-Semitism and prejudice in all of its forms"
President Obama, you have an opportunity to prevent genocide right now by confronting Iran. Yet, your administration remains opposed to Israel launching a military strike against Iran. In other words, you would rather have Israel tie their hands behind their backs and wait for a nuclear bomb to hit the streets of Tel Aviv or Jerusalem in the event that sanctions are not effective which they will not be in all likelihood.
How are you renewing your commitment to preventing genocide when you are opposed to Israel exercising its right to defend itself against the very genocide that you seem to be opposed to in your statement on Holocaust Remembrance Day.
This is just another example of Obama's failed rhetoric.
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Quote of the day
Former Mayor of New York, Rudy Giuliani, says it best:
"Obama thinks we can all hold hands, sing songs, and have peace symbols."
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Obama Changes National Security Document
In an attempt to be politically correct and appease his liberal base, Obama has now rejected the term "Radical Islam" as being the cause of worldwide terrorism.
A national security document created during the Bush Administration read "The struggle against militant Islamic radicalism is the great ideological conflict of the early years of the 21st century." Now, Obama is changing the national security document which is the premier document that determines U.S. national security strategy.
Who knows what will Obama put in place of radical Islam?
I know. Global warming. Or rather, the lack of nationalized health care. How about a bunch of Eskimos in Northern Alaska? Did you see the igloos that brought down the Towers on 9/11?
Unfortunately, Obama continues his famous doublespeak. On the one hand, he talks up a big deal that nuke terrorism is the number one threat facing the nation and how he remains committed to the security of the U.S.
But, when it comes to actually take a stand against terrorism in action rather than rhetoric, Obama fails miserably and hides behind his politically correct appeasing advisers in the White House.
If Obama can not even properly identify the very enemy that threatens the U.S. which is radical Islam, what makes anyone seriously think that Obama will have the courage to confront Iran or launch a military strike if the U.S. is attacked again Gdforbid.
How can anyone seriously believe that Obama is protecting the U.S. from daily threats against the country when he strikes a deal with the Russians to reduce the United States' nuclear arms supply in a time when Iran or North Korea or a terrorist group could launch a bio terror attack on the U.S.? (Obama heads to Prague to sign the U.S.-Russian Treaty which will reduce nuclear warheads to 1,550 over 7 years)
If someone out there has confidence in Obama's national security credentials, please tell me where you derive such a level of confidence in a President who is working actively to appease the enemy rather than weaken them.
A national security document created during the Bush Administration read "The struggle against militant Islamic radicalism is the great ideological conflict of the early years of the 21st century." Now, Obama is changing the national security document which is the premier document that determines U.S. national security strategy.
Who knows what will Obama put in place of radical Islam?
I know. Global warming. Or rather, the lack of nationalized health care. How about a bunch of Eskimos in Northern Alaska? Did you see the igloos that brought down the Towers on 9/11?
Unfortunately, Obama continues his famous doublespeak. On the one hand, he talks up a big deal that nuke terrorism is the number one threat facing the nation and how he remains committed to the security of the U.S.
But, when it comes to actually take a stand against terrorism in action rather than rhetoric, Obama fails miserably and hides behind his politically correct appeasing advisers in the White House.
If Obama can not even properly identify the very enemy that threatens the U.S. which is radical Islam, what makes anyone seriously think that Obama will have the courage to confront Iran or launch a military strike if the U.S. is attacked again Gdforbid.
How can anyone seriously believe that Obama is protecting the U.S. from daily threats against the country when he strikes a deal with the Russians to reduce the United States' nuclear arms supply in a time when Iran or North Korea or a terrorist group could launch a bio terror attack on the U.S.? (Obama heads to Prague to sign the U.S.-Russian Treaty which will reduce nuclear warheads to 1,550 over 7 years)
If someone out there has confidence in Obama's national security credentials, please tell me where you derive such a level of confidence in a President who is working actively to appease the enemy rather than weaken them.
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
