A place in cyberspace where I, and occasional guests, can expound our views and comments about the meaning of life, American culture and politics, current events, and other musings and observations about the world we live in from a center-right perspective.
| |||||
| |||||
| |||||
|
2. A freeze will not moderate – but will whet the appetite of - the PLO (Abbas) or Hamas (Haniyeh); it will radicalize their demands and fuel their terrorism. Former Prime Minister Barak's sweeping concessions, offered to Arafat and Abbas in October 2000, were greeted by the PLO-engineered Second Intifada. Furthermore, Prime Minister Olmert's unprecedented offer of concessions (including the return of some 1948 refugees) was rebuffed by Abbas.
3. A freeze re-entrenches the misperception of Jewish presence in Judea and Samaria as an obstacle to peace. It diverts attention and resources from the crucial threat to peace: Abbas-engineered hate education - the manufacturing line of terrorists - and Arab rejection of the existence – and not just the size – of the Jewish state.
4. A freeze and the adherence to presidential dictate will not transform the White House position on Iran-related matters. Besides, a freeze and the adherence to presidential dictate do not constitute a prerequisite to maintaining constructive strategic relations with the US (e.g. supply of critical military systems and crucial strategic cooperation). In fact, a freeze and a serial submission to presidential pressure – just like any other form of retreat - erode Israel's strategic posture in Washington and in the Middle East. Such an attitude ignores the role and power of Congress – especially when it comes to the Jewish state - at the dire expense of Israel's national security.
Is Jewish construction in Judea and Samaria an/the obstacle to peace?
1. In September 2005, Israel uprooted 25 Jewish communities from Gaza and Samaria. Gaza became Judenrein. It paved the road to the meteoric rise of Hamas, and induced more smuggling, manufacturing and launching of missiles at Jewish communities in Southern Israel.
2. President Obama defines Jewish presence in Judea and Samaria as a root cause of Arab hostility toward Israel. However, Jewish communities were established in Judea and Samaria after the wars of 1967, 1956 and 1948, after the 1949-1967 campaign of Arab terrorism, after the 1964 establishment of the PLO, after the 1929 slaughter of the Hebron Jewish community and the 1929 expulsion of the Gaza Jewish community, after the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s slaughter of the Jewish community of Gush Etzion, etc.
3. President Obama considers the 300,000 Jews (17%), who reside among Judea and Samaria's 1.5 million Arabs, an obstacle to peace. Why would he, then, view the 1.4 million Arabs (20%), who reside among pre-1967 Israel's 6 million Jews, as an example of peaceful coexistence?!
4. Obama urges the uprooting of Jewish communities from Judea and Samaria, in order to supposedly advance peace and human rights. Would he, therefore, urge the uprooting of Arab communities from pre-1967 Israel?!
5. Since Obama tolerates Arab opposition to Jewish presence in Judea and Samaria would he tolerate Jewish opposition to Arab presence in pre-1967 Israel?! While any attempt by Jews to reside in Palestinian Authority-controlled areas would trigger a lynching attempt, Arabs have peacefully resided within pre-1967 Israel. Doesn't such a reality highlight the nature of Arab intentions and the real obstacle to peace?!
6. Obama pressures Israel to freeze Jewish construction in Judea and Samaria, in order to avoid unilateral creation of facts on the ground. Shouldn't Obama demand a similar freeze of Arab construction in Judea and Samaria, which is 30 times larger than Jewish construction?! Doesn't the absence of a balanced approach, by Obama, prejudge of the outcome of negotiation?!
Freeze of Jewish construction in Judea and Samaria is not a peace-enhancer; it is an appeasement-enhancer
“Now, why can’t I say what I feel about a plan that I’m being asked to vote upon, that has been debated on the floor of the House on multiple occasions, where multiple numbers of people have used the term ‘government run health care plan?’” Carter asked at the press conference last week.Republicans are going to fight back.
“In fact, I would submit to you, when you look at this chart, how could you not say it’s a government-run health care plan?" he said.
“Why does the Franking Commission have the right to prevent me from freely speaking what I think my folks back home ought to hear and instead tell me I have to speak what the president said last night?” Carter said, referring to President Barack Obama’s televised press conference at the White House last Wednesday.
“I think that is an abridgement of free speech,” he said.
Diaspora Affairs Minister Yuli Edelstein said,
Jerusalem united is undisputedly our sovereign capitol. Jews are allowed to build, and live, anywhere in the city. "This has always been Israel's policy and this is the policy of the current government," declared the prime minister.
"...There is no prohibition against Arab residents buying apartments in the west of the city and there is no prohibition barring the city's Jewish residents from buying or building in the east of the city. That is the policy of an open city that is not divided."
"Thousands of Arab families build houses in Jerusalem, in the [primarily Jewish] neighborhoods of Neve Yaakov and French Hill, and I've never heard any comment on the matter from the United States or Europe. I'm trying to put this delicately: It would be very strange if Jews were discriminated against in Jerusalem of all places, especially in light of the fact that it is not an isolated site; this is the heart of the city, very close to the Government Compound and Israel Police Headquarters."
"A demand to cease construction in a neighborhood situated only several meters from the Hebrew University proves how dangerous it is to be dragged into a debate on settlement freeze, which will lead us to a total demand to freeze our normal lives throughout the entire State of Israel."The municipality of Jerusalem also weighed in on this issue, with a statement that reflects a principle of enormous significance:
"The Local Planning Committee of the Jerusalem Municipality operates according to equal criteria for all issues of construction permits, without regard to race, creed, gender, religion, or national identity of the resident or property owner."Imagine if Israel tried to prevent Arabs from building legally in the city. It seems that the world finds this acceptable only where Jews are concerned. And the Palestinians deign to refer to Israel as apartheid?
"Our sovereignty in Jerusalem is indisputable. We can't agree to such a demand in east Jerusalem."Leo Rennert writes in The American Thinker
"I wish to make this clear – the united Jerusalem is the capital of the Jewish people in the State of Israel," he added.
In a Washington Post op-ed intended to catch President Obama's attention, former Israeli Prime MInister Ehud Olmert urges the U.S. administration to stop obsessing about Jewish settlements and instead focus on Palestinian leader Mahmdoud Abbas's obstructionism in rejecting any realistic two-state solution.All of this leads us to the inevitable conclusion that the US should stop meddling in the internal affairs of a sovereign country. The US would never interfere in the internal decisions of any other country. What gives it the right to do so in Israel?
By lining up with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu against Obama's misbegotten diplomacy, Olmert demolishes a central tenet of the president's view of Israel's approach to peacemaking. Obama has made no secret of the fact that he views Netanyahu's Likud party as the main Israeli obstacle to the peace process. His administration calculated that, if Likud and Netanyahu could be marginalized -- in Israel as well as among most American Jews -- Obama would be able to get greater concessions from Israel to move toward a two-state solution.
Olmert's article demolishes this scenario by making it clear that it's not just Likud that opposes a total freeze on construction in existing settlements, but that this is a widely held view across the entire Israeli spectrum. Olmert's Kadima party is just as much at odds with Obama on this as is the Likud.
It's also a signal to American supporters of Israel, including the Jewish community, that it's time to press Obama to focus on Abbas's rejectionism as the main obstacle -- not Netanyahu.
Dear Mr. Westin:ABC's response follows:
As the national debate on health care reform intensifies, I am deeply concerned and disappointed with ABC's astonishing decision to exclude opposing voices on this critical issue on June 24, 2009. Next Wednesday, ABC News will air a primetime health care reform "town hall" at the White House with President Barack Obama. In addition, according to an ABC News report, GOOD MORNING AMERICA, WORLD NEWS, NIGHTLINE and ABC's web news "will all feature special programming on the president's health care agenda." This does not include the promotion, over the next 9 days, the president's health care agenda will receive on ABC News programming.
Today, the Republican National Committee requested an opportunity to add our Party's views to those of the President's to ensure that all sides of the health care reform debate are presented. Our request was rejected. I believe that the President should have the ability to speak directly to the America people. However, I find it outrageous that ABC would prohibit our Party's opposing thoughts and ideas from this national debate, which affects millions of ABC viewers.
In the absence of opposition, I am concerned this event will become a glorified infomercial to promote the Democrat agenda. If that is the case, this primetime infomercial should be paid for out of the DNC coffers. President Obama does not hold a monopoly on health care reform ideas or on free airtime. The President has stated time and time again that he wants a bipartisan debate. Therefore, the Republican Party should be included in this primetime event, or the DNC should pay for your airtime.
Respectfully,
Ken McKay
Republican National Committee
Chief of Staff
June 16, 2009Not only is the White House controlling American business, but now the media is only permitting one side of an issue to be broadcast because of White House control of ABC.
Mr. Ken McKay
Chief of Staff
Republican National Committee
310 First Street SE
Washington, D.C. 20003
Dear Mr. McKay:
I am in receipt of your letter of June 15, 2009 and wanted to respond to a number of false premises you raise regarding our ongoing and upcoming coverage of health care.
I hope we can all agree that a robust debate of health care issues and potential policies is in order.
To that end, ABC News announced plans to broadcast a primetime hour from the White House devoted to exploring and probing the President's position and the giving voice to questions and criticisms of that position. We hope that any American concerned about health care will find our efforts to be informative, fair and civil.
Second, ABC News prides itself on covering all sides of important issues and asking direct questions of all newsmakers -- of all political persuasions -- even when others have taken a more partisan approach and even in the face of criticism from extremes on both ends of the political spectrum. ABC News is looking for the most thoughtful and diverse voices on this issue. ABC News alone will select those who will be in the audience asking questions of the president. Like any programs we broadcast, ABC News will have complete editorial control. To suggest otherwise is quite unfair to both our journalists and our audience.
Third, there already has been extensive coverage of the upcoming health care debates, on ABC and elsewhere, and there will be much, much more. Indeed, we've already had many critics of the President's health care proposals on the air – and that's before a real plan has even been put before the country.
In the end, no one watching, listening to, or reading ABC News will lack for an understanding of all sides of these important questions.
Thank you for your interest.
Kerry Smith
SVP, ABC News
Arctic winds are blowing into Jerusalem from Washington these days. As Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's May 18 visit to Washington fast approaches, the Obama administration is ratcheting up its anti-Israel rhetoric and working feverishly to force Israel into a corner.
Once U.S. foreign policy is based on moral equivalence — that a Western democratic state is about the same as an undemocratic, radical authoritarian entity that embraces terrorism as a tool of state policy — then anything is possible, from calling for Israeli nuclear disarmament as part of an Iranian deal, to pretending that a Hamas ten-year truce is something other than a decade of chest-thumping before the final assault.
Given the fact that the vast majority of American Jews voted for Obama — despite clear indications that he would embrace radical changes in U.S. policy toward Israel — the politics of what is to come will be as fascinating as they will be tragic.
None of this, however, should come as the slightest surprise to anyone who paid any attention to Obama’s background, associations and friendships before he became President and to the cabal of Israel-bashers, appeasers and Jew-haters he appointed to his administration, with a few useful idiots thrown in for plausible deniability.
Almost eighty per cent of American Jews voted for Obama despite the clear and present danger he posed to Israel. They did so because their liberal self-image was and is more important to them than the Jewish state whose existence and security cannot be allowed to jeopardise their standing with America’s elite.
But the ordinary American people are a different matter. They do value and support Israel. They do understand that if Israel is thrown under that bus, the west is next. And it is they to whom Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu must now appeal, over the heads of the politicians and the media and America’s Jews and everyone else. He must tell the American people the terrible truth, that America is now run by a man who is intent on sacrificing Israel for a reckless and amoral political strategy which will put America and the rest of the free world at risk.
Netanyahu is reluctant to agree to a Palestinian state before he knows what kind of state it will be. That elementary prudence should be shared by anyone who's been sentient the last three years. The Palestinians already have a state, an independent territory with not an Israeli settler or soldier living on it. It's called Gaza. And what is it? A terror base, Islamist in nature, Iranian-allied, militant and aggressive, that has fired more than 10,000 rockets and mortars at Israeli civilians.
If this is what a West Bank state is going to be, it would be madness for Israel or America or Jordan or Egypt or any other moderate Arab country to accept such a two-state solution. Which is why Netanyahu insists that the Palestinian Authority first build institutions -- social, economic and military -- to anchor a state that could actually carry out its responsibilities to keep the peace.
It is a strange situation when Egypt and Jordan feel it necessary to defend Israel against American criticism. But this is the situation in which we find ourselves today.Many of us warned American Jews prior to the election that an Obama administration would create danger for Israel. American Jews were so enthralled with electing an African-American President so they could assuage their guilt and could show that they were not racist, that they wouldn't believe that an Obama Administration might not be good for Israel.
Last Friday, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told the House of Representatives Appropriations Committee that Arab support for Israel's bid to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons is contingent on its agreeing to support the rapid establishment of a Palestinian state. In her words, "For Israel to get the kind of strong support it's looking for vis-a-vis Iran, it can't stay on the sidelines with respect to the Palestinians and the peace efforts." As far as Clinton is concerned, the two, "go hand-in-hand."
But just around the time that Clinton was making this statement, Jordan's King Abdullah II was telling The Washington Post that he is satisfied with the Netanyahu government's position on the Palestinians. In his words, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has "sent a message that he's committed to peace with the Arabs. All the words I heard were the right words."
As for Egypt, in spite of the media's hysteria that Egypt won't deal with the Netanyahu government and the Obama administration's warning that Israel can only expect Egypt to support its position that Iran must be denied nuclear weapons if it gives Jerusalem to the PLO, last week's visit by Egypt's intelligence chief Omar Suleiman clearly demonstrated that Egypt wishes to work with the government on a whole host of issues. Coming as it did on the heels of Egypt's revelation that Iranian-controlled Hizbullah agents were arrested for planning strategic attacks against it, Suleiman's visit was a clear sign that Egypt is as keen as Israel to neutralize Iranian power in the region by preventing it from acquiring nuclear weapons.
And Egypt and Jordan are not alone in supporting Israel's commitment to preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear power. American and other Western sources who have visited the Persian Gulf in recent months report that leaders of the Gulf states from Bahrain - which Iran refers to as its 14th province - to Saudi Arabia to Kuwait and, of course, to Iraq - are praying for Israel to strike Iran's nuclear facilities and only complain that it has waited so long to attack them.
As one American who recently met with Persian Gulf leaders explained last week, "As far as the Gulf leaders are concerned, Israel cannot attack Iran fast enough. They understand what the stakes are."
UNFORTUNATELY, THE nature of those stakes has clearly eluded the Obama administration. As the Arabs line up behind Israel, the Obama administration is operating under the delusion that the Iranians will be convinced to give up their nuclear program if Israel destroys its communities in Judea and Samaria.
According to reports published last week in Yediot Aharonot and Haaretz, President Barack Obama's in-house post-Zionist, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel, told an American Jewish leader that for Israel to receive the administration's support for preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, it must not only say that it supports establishing a Palestinian state in Judea, Samaria, Jerusalem and Gaza, it must begin expelling its citizens from their homes and communities in Judea and Samaria to prove its good faith.
With just months separating Iran from either joining the nuclear club or from being barred entry to the clubhouse, the Obama administration's apparent obsession with Judea and Samaria tells us that unlike Israel and the Arab world, its Middle East policies are based on a willful denial of reality.The Obama Administration is totally clueless about the mentality of the Middle East. Their naivete, ignorance and inexperience will cause the deaths of many people in the region, most of whom will likely be Israelis.
The cold hard facts are that the Middle East will be a very different place if Iran becomes a nuclear power. Today American policy-makers and other opponents of using military force to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons compare the current situation to what the region could look like in the aftermath of an Israeli campaign against Iran's nuclear installations. They warn that Hizbullah and Hamas may launch massive retaliatory missile attacks against Israel, Egypt, Jordan and other states, and that US military personnel and installations in the region will likely be similarly attacked by Iranian and Syrian proxies.
Indeed, proponents and opponents of an Israeli strike against Iran's nuclear installations alike warn that Iran's deployment of terror proxies from Beirut to Bolivia, from Managua to Marseilles, and from Gaza to Giza means that things could get very ugly worldwide in the aftermath of an Israeli attack.
But all of that ugliness, all of that instability and death will look like a walk in the park compared to how the region - and indeed how the world - will look if Iran becomes a nuclear power. This is something that the Arabs understand. And this is why they support and pray for an Israeli strike against Iran's nuclear installations.
IF IRAN acquires nuclear weapons, the Obama administration can throw its hopes for Middle East peace out the window. Today, even without nuclear weapons, Iran is the major force behind the continued Palestinian war against Israel. Iran exerts complete control over Hamas and Islamic Jihad and partial control over Fatah.
In and of itself, Iran's current control over Palestinian terror groups suffices to expose the Obama administration's plan to force Israel to destroy its communities in Judea and Samaria as misguided in the extreme. With Iran calling the shots for the Palestinians, it is clear that any land Israel vacates will fall under Iranian control. That is, every concession the US forces Israel to make will redound directly to Iran's benefit. This is why Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's claim that it will be impossible to resolve the conflict with the Palestinians without first neutralizing Iran rings so true.
Finally, there is America. With Israel either barely surviving or destroyed, with the Arab world and Europe bowing before the mullahs, with much of Central and South America fully integrated into the Iranian axis, America would arguably find itself at greater risk of economic destruction and catastrophic attack than at any time in its history since the War of 1812. An EMP attack that could potentially send the US back to the pre-industrial age would become a real possibility. An Iranian controlled oil economy, financed by euros, would threaten to displace the dollar and the US economy as the backbone of the global economy. The US's military options - particularly given Obama's stated intention to all but end US missile defense programs and scrap much of its already aging nuclear arsenal - would be more apparent than real.One wonders at what point American Jews will realize that they made a catastrophic mistake in electing Barak Obama to the Presidency.
Yet what Clinton's statements before Congress, Emmanuel's statements to that American Jewish leader and Obama's unremitting pandering to Teheran and its Syrian and Turkish allies all make clear is that none of these reasonable scenarios has made a dent in the administration's thinking. As far as the Obama White House is concerned, Iran will be talked out of its plans for regional and global domination the minute that Israel agrees to give its land to the Palestinians. The fact that no evidence exists that could possibly support this assertion is irrelevant.
On Sunday, Washington Post columnist Jim Hoagland claimed that Obama will not publish his administration's policy on Iran until after he meets with Netanyahu at the White House on May 18. It will be during that meeting, Hoagland wrote, that Obama will seek to convince Netanyahu that there is no reason to attack Iran.
The fact that Obama could even raise such an argument, when by Israel's calculations Iran will either become a nuclear power or be denied nuclear weapons within the next 180 days, shows that his arguments are based on a denial of the danger a nuclear Iran poses to Israel and to global security as a whole.
It is true that you can't help but get a funny feeling when you see the Arabs defending Israel from American criticism. But with the Obama administration's Middle East policy firmly grounded in La La Land, what choice do they have? They understand that today all that stands between them and enslavement to the mullahs is the Israel Air Force and Binyamin Netanyahu's courage.
For too long, America has been too dismissive of the proud culture and invaluable contributions of the Pirate Community. Whether it is their pioneering work with prosthetics, husbandry of tropical birds or fanciful fashion sense, America owes a deep debt to Pirates.
At the recent meeting of G-20 nations in London, officials from many nations agreed on one thing -- that the United States is to blame for the world recession. President Obama agreed, speaking in Strasbourg of "the reckless speculation of bankers that has now fueled a global economic downturn."The article shows that the recession did not start in the U.S., and that the speculation of bankers was not the cause of the recession or the financial meltdown.
What really triggered this recession should be obvious, since the same thing happened before every other postwar US recession save one (1960).Read the complete article.
In 1983, economist James Hamilton of the University of California at San Diego showed that "all but one of the US recessions since World War Two have been preceded, typically with a lag of around three-fourths of a year, by a dramatic increase in the price of crude petroleum." The years 1946 to 2007 saw 10 dramatic spikes in the price of oil -- each of which was soon followed by recession.
In The Financial Times on Jan. 3, 2008, I therefore suggested, "The US economy is likely to slip into recession because of higher energy costs alone, regardless of what the Fed does."
In a new paper at cato.org, "Financial Crisis and Public Policy," Jagadeesh Gokhale notes that the prolonged decline in exurban housing construction that began in early 2006 was a logical response to rising prices of oil and gasoline at that time. So was the equally prolonged decline in sales of gas-guzzling vehicles. And the US/UK financial crises in the fall of 2008 were likewise as much a consequence of recession as the cause: Recessions turn good loans into bad.
The recession began in late 2007 or early 2008 in many countries, with the United States one of the least affected. Countries with the deepest recessions have no believable connection to US housing or banking problems.
The truth is much simpler: There is no way the oil-importing economies could have kept humming along with oil prices of $100 a barrel, much less $145. Like nearly every other recession of the postwar period, this one was triggered by a literally unbearable increase in the price of oil.
Barely a month into the presidency of Barack Obama, a profound realization is spreading among the pro-Israel community: we do not have an ally in the White House. The growing threat that Israel and the Jewish People now face demands an immediate acceptance of the "facts on the ground" regarding President Obama's perspective and agenda, and decisive action to prevent the frightening reality that he may play a leading role in creating.American Jews are going to come to a sad realization that they got taken in by an inexperienced Chicago neighborhood organizer who said that he was pro-Israel, and Jews believed him. Americans should have learned long ago that you can't count on ANYTHING a politican says when he is running for office and wants your vote.
So how exactly did this get by most Jewish voters during last year's election? While some, including this author, warned of his dubious associations and likely course of action regarding Israel, Obama brilliantly pandered to Jewish crowds around the country with his scripted and amorphous proclamations of support for Israel, while utilizing an array of prominent Jewish surrogates in order to avoid any real accountability.
Under the new Obama administration, our federal government is now beginning to comfortably operate within the realm of the anti-Israel perspective espoused by the likes of Mearsheimer and Walt, who argue that the political clout of American Jews is used to manipulate U.S. foreign policy in favor of Israel at the expense of broader American interests. On one hand, President Obama receives advice on Israel, Iran and the entire Middle East from advisors such as Zbigniew Brzezinski, Samantha Power, and Chas Freeman, all of whom possess strong anti-Israel biases that are well documented. Freeman, whose nomination to a top intelligence post faces growing criticism, was quoted as saying "the primary reason America confronts a terrorism problem today... is the brutal oppression of the Palestinians by an Israeli occupation." As if that were not bad enough, even Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is apparently now joining the fray with her recent remarks intended to unduly pressure Israel.
On the other hand, there is also a faction of prominent Jewish politicians who don't seem willing to speak out against the President's judgment or the actions we are now witnessing. While allowing President Obama to tout their Jewish identities for political gain, these politicians are also helping the Administration to confer mainstream status and legitimacy upon treacherous new Jewish agencies like J-Street, whose vision for Israel more readily identifies with that of her enemies. Combined, the forces at work within the Executive branch are helping to create conditions that will allow President Obama to force dangerous concessions upon Israel.
The policies put forth by President Obama during his first 30 days in office paint a disturbing picture as well. In light of his first Presidential news interview having been granted to the Al-Arabia television network, his first head-of-state phone call placed to Mahmoud Abbas, and his allocation of $20 million dollars of taxpayer money to resettling Palestinians with ties to Hamas in the United States, what we have witnessed is a clear pattern of taking the pressure off terrorist groups, the Islamist regimes that support them and other tyrants who hate Israel and America in favor of offering them legitimacy and leniency. The growing danger of the Iranians and their nuclear weapons program, along with the network of villains they are organizing and arming, are without a doubt today's greatest threat to America, Israel and the Western World. As President Obama offers the Iranians more time, despite plenty of credible evidence that their nuclear weapons program is speeding ahead, he is also granting a reprieve to their vicious surrogates. For example, numerous overtures and contacts are taking place between the Administration and the Al-Assad regime, less than a year and a half after Israel was forced to destroy Syria's secret nuclear reactor facility built by the North Koreans.
Another Iranian proxy, the Hamas terror organization, is also benefiting from President Obama's appeasement and accommodation. Special Middle-East Envoy George Mitchell recently signaled U.S. approval for Hamas to join in governing the Palestinian Authority. That is in addition to the $900 million in U.S. taxpayer money that will shortly be gifted to Hamas-controlled Gaza for "aid," which will only help to ensure that the terrorists need not spend their own money on anything other than arms and death. Once Hamas is finally legitimized, which now appears to be likely, one can only imagine how their international acceptance will adversely impact the prospect of peace.
Anti-Israelism and other forms of latent anti-Semitism have also received a boost from President Obama's initial decision to send a delegation to the negotiation sessions of the upcoming Durban II conference. The U.S. representatives' silence in the face of repeated attempts to demonize Israel and vilify Zionism did plenty to gratify the gathering of wolves, before the President ultimately realized that America's presence was making things worse rather than better. The damage has been done however, and while the U.S. has indicated after the fact that it likely will not participate in the plenary session, many nations that would have otherwise followed the U.S. in boycotting Durban II will now be lending their credence. Israel's supporters must understand that this set of circumstances significantly helps our enemies' effort to delegitimize Israel's right to exist by harkening back to the "Zionism is racism" days of U.N. Resolution 3379.
In looking squarely ahead to the grave challenges we face on the horizon, it is important to keep in mind that we are still early in the new President's term, and that there are a variety of ways to demand action on the promises we were assured of during his campaign. To begin, we must call upon pro-Israel Congressional leaders and Jewish activists - those who supported President Obama and those who didn't - to hold him to his word and protect the America-Israel relationship. We cannot afford to be passive in performing this task. Where there is inaction or resistance, we must withhold all support from politicians who won't stand up to the Administration's harmful policies. The solemn oath of "Never Again" must not be forgotten in our time.
| The Propositions |
 By going to the web site of the California Secretary of State, which you can do by clicking here, you will find both the text of the propositions and the arguments for and against it in separate pdf files. |
| Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association |
 THE NEW CALIFORNIA TAX REVOLT! Vote No on Prop. 1A "We are a government of the People and for the People instead of by and for the Politicians." - Howard Jarvis, 1977 Proposition 1A is a blatant attempt to raise all Californians' taxes to support the continual overspending by Sacramento politicians. Sacramento Politicians Wage War Against California Taxpayers! These new taxes will cost the average California family over $1,100 per year. That's right, higher sales taxes, higher income taxes and a higher car tax. If you have children, you have lost much of your tax credit for dependents. Now is the time to fight back! It is time to show Sacramento that "WE THE PEOPLE" are the government. The people we elect are not the bosses, we are! The Governor and two-thirds of the Legislature have voted to make California taxpayers the highest taxed people in the country for the next two years. To make matters worse, these same political elitists have placed Proposition 1A on the May 19 special election ballot, which would DOUBLE the damage to taxpayers if passed. Here is what is important about Proposition 1A: Masked behind a phony spending limit is an extension of the massive tax increase just approved. Proposition 1A means an additional two years, for a total of 4 years of record high taxes. That's another $16 billion of your money! THE FACTS: Prop. 1A will raise taxes on all Californians and extend them for an additional two years, taking another $16 billion from you! The already approved tax increase will cost a typical California family $1,100 annually.HIGHER SALES TAX! Prop. 1A will extend the sales tax hike for another two years. California taxpayers already pay the highest sales tax in the nation - this is a direct attack on all working families, especially low-income residents. HIGHER CAR TAX! Prop. 1A will extend the DOUBLING of the car tax. This affects every California car owner. HIGHER STATE INCOME TAX! Prop. 1A will extend an income tax increase for two extra years. Californians already pay the highest income tax rates in the nation. And now they will collect more from you. REDUCTION OF TAX CREDIT FOR DEPENDENTS! Californians with children will see a reduction in the tax credits for dependents, costing families $200 per child. Prop. 1A will extend this attack on families for an extra two years. The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association is urging a vote of "NO" on Proposition 1A, which DOUBLES the tax increase! DECEPTION, FAKE, FRAUD AND A $16 BILLION TAX INCREASE. DON'T BE DECEIVED by statements that this is a "SPENDING LIMIT" initiative. Those Sacramento politicians, who made a backroom "deal" to resolve the budget process with a tax increase that will cost the typical California family over $1,100, are offering another deal they hope will fool voters. What they are offering is a package of measures on the May 19 Special Election ballot that will confirm their tax increase budget. However, the lynchpin of their plans is Proposition 1A. 1A is being promoted as a spending limit that will compel those under the Capitol dome to behave responsibly. This spending limit is a limit in name only because it will automatically go up as taxes are increased by the Legislature. THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYSTS OFFICE TELLS THE TRUTH ABOUT PROPOSITION 1A On March 13th the LAO released a budget report containing a graph that clearly illustrates how Proposition 1A would extend California taxes. CLICK THE GRAPH below to open a larger version.  Legislative Analyst's Office says: "Proposition 1A Results in Tax Increases." Click here for complete analysis by the California Legislative Analyst. THE FIRST STEP IN THE NEW CALIFORNIA TAX REVOLT SPREAD THE WORD with our printable fact sheet. This one-page summary explains in clear English exactly why Proposition 1A means HIGHER TAXES. Print out as many copies as you like and give them to your friends, family and neighbors. Keep one for yourself so you'll know what to say when people ask you how they should vote on May 19th. You'll have all the answers right in your hand! Click here to download our Prop. 1A Fact Sheet. WHAT ELSE IS ON THE BALLOT? The following are also part of the Sacramento politicians' budget and tax package: Prop. 1B: Provides extra funds for schools and community colleges starting in 2011 to compensate for cuts in the current budget. Prop. 1C: Allows the state to borrow $5 billion against future state lottery sales; allows the state to change the lottery system to generate more revenue and use funds for programs other than education. Prop. 1D: Allows the state to divert $608 million from Proposition 10 (tobacco tax for children's health care) to general-fund costs of children's health care in the fiscal year beginning July 1. The amount drops to $268 million a year from July 1, 2010, to June 30, 2014. Prop. 1E: Allows the state to divert $230 million a year from Proposition 63 (taxes the wealthy to fund mental health programs) to offset general fund costs of other mental health programs for two years beginning July 1. WE, THE PEOPLE, ARE THE TAX REVOLT! TOGETHER WE CAN SHOW SACRAMENTO WHO'S BOSS! VOTE "NO" ON PROP. 1A. Knowledge is power! Get informed, be informed and stay informed. Official "NO on Prop. 1A" Window Sign "NO on Proposition 1A" Facebook Group Prop. 1A Fact Sheet. To see this article on the HJTA web site go here. |
| A Letter from Steve Poizner to the CRP |
 Steve Poizner today sent the following letter to California Republican Party Chairman Ron Nehring. Steve called on the CRP to formally oppose Proposition 1A on the May 19 ballot. Steve is vigorously campaigning against Proposition 1A because its passage would result in $16 billion in higher car, income, and sales taxes for an additional two years. A copy of the letter follows: For the text of the letter, click here. |
| Sonoma County Analysis |
The Republican Party of Sonoma County did a thorough review of the Propositions. They came up with the following information, which I have read and find that I agree with. The Measures The measures are set up as a "family"- all measure 1, but with alphabetical sub-designations to divide distinct items as Propositions 1-A through 1-F. This listing tends to produce confusion among the voters on the various parts of the "family" of propositions, making it more difficult for voters to remember which to favor and which to oppose on a divided ballot. It is a way of getting voters to vote on the "package" without looking carefully at the contents. Unfortunately, some will fall for this calculated ruse. The Sonoma County Republican Party thinks the voters are due more than disrespectful ruses from their government. We have looked carefully at each proposition and have come to a common conclusion: it is not just the ballot numbering that is a ruse. In this election, California voters are facing a barrage of unparalleled falsehoods and misrepresentations. Proponents of these bogus measures called for a May vote hoping for a low voter turnout. Do not be bamboozled. We hope you will vote as we suggest, but at all hazards: VOTE in this election! Proposition 1-A: THE "RAINY DAY" BUDGET STABILIZATION FUND VOTE NO on this fraud. If politicians could be prosecuted for deceptive advertising this little item would land a bunch of Sacramento hacks in jail. According to the Secretary of State's Ballot Label for this proposition, the measure would "limit future deficits by increasing the State's 'rainy day' fund," but it would also exact "higher state tax revenues of roughly $16 billion." Yes, Proposition 1-A is nothing less than the authorization of a massive tax increase to deposit in a state "reserve;" but these additional reserve funds are intended to be spent when state revenues drop below the amount "needed" to fund the government. Those who decide how many dollars are "needed" to fund the government also decide when to spend the reserve. In the end, the State "Rainy Day" reserve is nothing more than another pot of money to feed the big government monster. Proposition 1-B: EDUCATION FUNDING. PAYMENT PLAN VOTE NO on this "save now - pay later" scheme. The Secretary of State says, "Potential state savings of up to several billion dollars in 2009-10 and 2010-11. Potential state costs of billions of dollars annually thereafter." Temporary cuts to education made now will be added back to the education budget later and taxpayers will receive the bill for the "repayment." Proposition 1-C: LOTTERY MODERNIZATION ACT VOTE NO on this shell-game gamble. If "modernizing" means increasing the public debt by writing IOU's in the name of California taxpayers to the California State Lottery, then this could rightfully be considered as a contribution to progress. The State is having problems selling its unsustainable debt instruments to investors, so why not just strongarm some more credit from one of its own public-private partnerships? Proposition 1-D: CHILDREN'S SERVICES FUNDING VOTE NO on this bait and switch sham. The California Legislature imposed a tax on cigarettes a few years back on the pretence that the new tax would yield money for early childhood programs. Now, here is that same Legislature in your face telling you that it wants to move that money around in whatever way it sees fit. Make a promise. Find an excuse. Break the promise. See a pattern here? Proposition 1-E: MENTAL HEALTH FUNDING. TEMPORARY REALLOCATION VOTE NO on this hand-is-quicker-than-the-eye scam. Californians voted in 2004 to provide funds for specific mental health services. It was called Proposition 63. Now comes the Legislature to undo the work of the supporters of Proposition 63 by getting what they hope is a forgetful public to take money from that purpose and give it over to another purpose. So much for public earmarks! You may get your wish today, but ultimately all forms of revenue will go to the general fund where politicians can use it to meet their own agendas. Don't fall for this undermining of the California initiative process. Proposition 1-F: ELECTED OFFICIALS' SALARIES. PREVENTS PAY INCREASES DURING BUDGET DEFICIT YEARS VOTE NO on this sly bit of chicanery. The measure only empowers the Director of Finance to prevent the Citizens Compensation Commission from recommending an increase when a deficit year is declared. Of course, the politicians can still pass their own increases; but even if they don't, it would be a small loss compared to the big money showered on their campaigns by the unions and other special interests. Why punish our own people for having the courage to represent us? |
| May Propositions: Fix is in |
Dan Baren, Chairman of the Lincoln Club of Orange County and Richard K. Wagner, President of the Lincoln Club of Orange County wrote an article in the Orange County Register. You can read the article here. Excerpt: The governor claims these "reforms" will solve California's current budget crisis and prevent future calamities. He will ominously warn that all hell will break loose if voters fail to pass these initiatives. The governor's propaganda machine will go largely unanswered - as potential opponents of the initiatives, both from the left (labor unions) and the right (business and taxpayers groups), have tacitly signed on to the deal or are simply sitting this one out. That's unfortunate because the initiative package championed by the governor is a sham and does nothing to address the real problems in Sacramento - runaway spending, an ever-increasing tax burden and a budgetary process that is controlled by special interests, namely state employee unions. Start with their blatantly dishonest packaging. Proposition 1A, the cornerstone measure of the package, asks voters to rubber-stamp one of the largest tax increases in state history. You would never know it by reading the official title of the measure - "Spending Cap Amendment." Even worse, the official ballot statement opposing 1A makes no mention of any tax increases. Rather than use the persuasive anti-tax message submitted by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and Irvine Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, the secretary of state selected an argument authored by labor groups and lamenting that the spending cap will make it too hard for the state to keep spending. The fix is clearly in. |
| Other Information on 1A -1F |
The following are links to articles commenting on the Propositions, particularly the deceptive Proposition 1A: May Ballot Props - a Really Bad Deal, Assemblyman Ray Haynes PROP. 1A: FR INTERVIEW WITH ECONOMIST BEN ZYCHER WHO SAYS THE MEASURE DOES NOT DELIVER ON A PROMISE OF A REAL SPENDING LIMIT Assemblyman Jim Nielson Blasts Proposition 1A Orange County Republican Party Joins Growing GOP Opposition To Special Election Ballot Props There are many other articles, but you get the gist. |
| After reading all of the above material, you have probably come to the conclusion that Propositions 1A -1F should be defeated on May 19th. Do not be fooled by the so-called "spending cap" in Proposition 1A. As you have read above, it is not a true spending cap, and, of course, Proposition 1A extends the higher taxes for an additional two years. If you still have some questions, or doubts about whether to oppose the Propositions, please feel free to contact me. Before closing, I would like to address one other issue. I have heard it said that the Republican Party is just the Party of No. That all the Republicans do is oppose other people's ideas, but don't have any good ideas of their own. There was an alternative to the vote of the Legislature to approve the present budget last February. Most Republicans in the legislature knew that. Republicans have presented viable alternatives to the huge budget that the California legislature adopted in February, including myself. It is not true that the only possibility was to adopt the budget presented because there was no way to cut further spending and because the State would have become insolvent. You can read my proposal here. We are Republicans. We stand for liberty, limited government and low taxes. The Propositions 1A through 1F raise taxes and increase spending, the opposite of what we stand for. Higher taxes decrease Liberty. We need to take a principled stand for what we believe in. Vote NO on Proposition 1A and on the other Propositions. Sincerely,  Gary Aminoff President San Fernando Valley Republican Club (310)387-6900 aminoff@sfvrc.org UPDATE: Former Los Angeles Mayor, Richard Riordan says May Ballot Propositions are a scam. Go here to read the article in the Los Angeles Times Here is an excerpt: If you think Bernard Madoff is the swindler of the year, stop and consider Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Legislature, the gang responsible for the ballot measures we'll be voting on in May.Additional Update - April 27, 2009 Michael Hiltzik, a Los Angeles Times reporter and analyst, wrote an article today titled,"California budget fixes on May 19 ballot are mostly shams and frauds" Excerpt: One can always tell that a California election is drawing near because commercials lying about ballot propositions start crowding commercials lying about detergents and pharmaceuticals off the TV.Read the whole article. It remains obvious to everyone, except the uninformed public, many of whom will be swayed by and believe the deceitful advertisements that unashamedly lie about the Propositions, that these Propositions do nothing to fix the State Budget problems. Time to send the Legislature back to the drawing board to cut the fat. Don't believe them when they tell you there is no room to cut. Spending by the State Government has increased 50% in the past five years, while the population of California increased 10% during the same period. Why? The State has added 50,000 employees to the State payroll over the past 5 years. Why? There is room to cut. The problem is the legislators don't want to offend the special interests that fund the Democratic Party. |
President Obama’s stewardship of the national security portfolio to date amounts to a wrecking operation, a set of policies he must understand will not only weaken the United States but embolden our foes. After all, the Communist agitator Saul Alinsky, a formative influence in Mr. Obama’s early years as a “community organizer,” made Rule Number One in his 1971 book Rules for Radicals: “Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.”President Bush, whatever else you can say about him, was very careful to make sure that our enemies never got a perception of the U.S. as being weak or vulnerable. Is that why we were never attacked after 9-11? Will the actions of this President encourage at attack because we will be perceived as weak? Only time will tell.
According to this logic, the various steps Barack Obama is taking with respect to the armed forces, the foreign battlefields in which they are engaged, our allies as well as our adversaries will not only diminish our power. They will encourage our enemies to perceive us as less powerful – with ominous implications. Consider some illustrative examples:
* The Obama administration is cutting the defense budget by 10%. The result will be to preclude much, if not virtually all, of the modernization that will be required to prepare the U.S. military to contend with tomorrow’s wars. Most of what the Pentagon spends goes to fixed – and growing – personnel-related costs (pay, bonuses, health care, etc.) and operations. As a result, at Obama funding levels, there will not be much available even to “reset” today’s forces by refurbishing the equipment they have been using up in present conflicts.
* The President is on a path to denuclearizing the United States by refusing to modernize the arsenal or even to fund fully the steps necessary to assure the viability of the weapons we have. He hopes to dress up this act of unilateral disarmament by seeking to resume arms control negotiations with Russia, as though such throw-backs to the old Cold War and its bipolar power structure apply today – let alone that there are grounds for believing the Kremlin will adhere to new treaties any better than the previous ones it systematically violated.
* For good measure, Mr. Obama is mounting a frontal assault on the armed forces themselves. The President plans to repeal the law prohibiting homosexuals from serving in the military. It is absolutely predictable that significant numbers of servicemen and women – including many of the most experienced commissioned and non-commissioned officers – will retire rather than serve in conditions of forced intimacy with individuals who may find them sexually attractive. The effect will be to break the all-volunteer force.
* Then there are the Obama initiatives in Iraq and Afghanistan. The President’s adoption of a deadline for withdrawing most U.S. forces from the former and his signaling that – despite a near-term 17,000 troop “surge” – he is preparing to turn the latter over to the oxymoronic-dubbed “moderate” Taliban are conveying unmistakable messages to friends and foes alike: Under Barack Obama, it is better to be a foe of America than one of its friends.
This message is, of course, being strongly reinforced by the treatment he is doling out to nations in each category.
* Friends like the Poles and Czechs have been left in the lurch as the Obama administration intimates that the United States now thinks Europe does not need after all to be defended against Iranian nuclear-armed missile threats. Not since Jimmy Carter abandoned the NATO deployment of so-called “neutron bombs” has a President conveyed such a devastating message of weakness and irresolution in the face of hostile threats to our European alliance partners.
* Other allies have not fared much better. Israel is on notice that its security interests are going to be sacrificed to the Obama administration’s pursuit of a Palestinian state – even one ruled by a terrorist organization like Hamas (or, for that matter, Fatah) committed to Israel’s destruction. Britain has been told it neither deserves nor has a “special” relationship with the United States.
* Meanwhile virtually every enemy of the United States is the object of assiduous cultivation and overtures for rapprochement by the Obama administration. It will reward IranSyria can expect the Golan Heights and removal from the terrorism list even as it pursues nuclear arms, renews its overtly colonial hold on Lebanon, supports the terrorists of Hezbollah and helps its abiding master, Iran, destabilize Iraq. for “going nuclear” with normalized relations.
* As mentioned above, Russia gets to be treated like a superpower again while it arms Iran, inserts bombers and naval units into our hemisphere, wields its energy leverage against our friends in Europe, Ukraine and Georgia and squeezes our supply lines into Afghanisan. There are no repercussions for China as it makes a mockery of the administration’s beloved Law of the Sea Treaty by threatening an unarmed U.S. naval vessel in its Exclusive Economic Zone.
* Last but hardly least, a “respectful” Obama administration seems keen to embrace those in the Muslim Brotherhood and like-minded Islamist organizations who seek to impose the toxic theo-political-legal program authoritative Islam calls Shariah on distant populations – and insinuate it into our country.
Can there be any doubt what America’s adversaries make of all this? Great grief will come our way if they conclude, as Alinsky surely would, that our power is waning, and that they can exercise theirs with impunity against our interests – and those of whatever friends we have left.
“Today’s analysis of the President’s FY 2010 budget by the Congressional Budget Office confirms that under the President’s plan, our debt will increase to shocking levels that are simply unsustainable and will devastate future economic opportunities for our children and grandchildren.Contact your Congressman and Senators and ask them to vote against this huge expansion of government and the probable economic ruin of America.
“According to CBO, the President’s budget would double publicly held debt in five years and nearly triple it in ten years. President Obama’s borrow-and-spend-and-borrow-more policies result in debt growing to 82% of GDP by 2019. The last time the debt was near that level was in 1948 when the country was paying off its debts from World War II.
“This debt buildup is due to massive spending that we cannot afford, and deficits that go unaddressed. Unfunded entitlement obligations also are ignored. Debt at that level is unsustainable and represents an unprecedented threat to our economy and the value of our currency. This debt could very well bankrupt future generations.
“Our struggling economy is now at a crossroads, and I strongly urge the Democratic majority to show the fiscal restraint needed to control spending, maintain a fair tax policy and cut the deficit, so that we can head off the avalanche of debt that is poised to crush the economy.”
1965 – The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is created.
HUD and FHA insure loans for borrowers with insufficient credit, thereby driving down interest rates for low-income borrowers and artificially increasing the amount of housing produced and sold.
1977 – The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) becomes law
and requires banks to loan to the areas where the banks are located, regardless of the eligibility of potential borrowers. To enforce the statute, government agencies take the information they gather on the banks into consideration when deciding to approve applications for new bank branches or for mergers or acquisitions.
1992 The Clinton Presidency Begins
Government weakens bank lending standards. A now-discredited study published by the Boston Federal Reserve enables Government Sponsored Enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to accept lower underwriting standards for mortgages they are seeking to purchase, so they may expand their portfolios, enable private banks to make more loans and influence the housing sector.78
At the same time, Congress weakens Fannie and Freddie standards. The Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act (FHEFSSA) is passed into law. This act mandates that the GSEs increase their acquisition of bank loans made to risky and lower income borrowers. GSE Fannie Mae announces a trillion dollar commitment. Banks know they can meet CRA requirements by giving these loans, and that they will be able to pass the risk of such loans on to the implicitly taxpayer-backed Government Sponsored Enterprises, so they make lower quality loans.
Also in 1992, Countrywide, Wachovia, and others pushed by Federal Reserve publications and other regulations begin loaning to clients with no or bad credit. Lenders are able to pass on the added risk of these loans by selling them to the GSEs, who guarantee, repackage, and sell them as securities with the implicit backing of the government in the case of default.
2003 Corruption at Fannie and Freddie
In 2003, the Federal Reserve lowers interest rates to 1% – the lowest since the 1960s. The rate allows borrowers to borrow at an interest rate lower than the rate of inflation, effectively subsidizing borrowers, encouraging banks and individuals to borrow as much as possible.
President Bush calls for reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by increasing their capital-reserve requirements, the percentage of liquid assets lending institutions must keep on hand incase of financial trouble.17 Third-party groups call for the two Government Sponsored Enterprises to be fully privatized, rather than the current status which privatizes profits but socializes risk. Congress, heavily lobbied by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to oppose the reform, opposes reform.Frank: “I do not think we are facing any kind of a crisis. That is, in my view, the two government sponsored enterprises we are talking about here, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not in a crisis… . I do not think at this point there is a problem with a threat to the Treasury.
— Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), at a hearing in 2003
I am Jewish, a conservative Republican and a native Californian. I love individual liberty, limited government, free markets, capitalism, our Constitution, America and Israel. I abhor tyranny and fascism and believe that socialism destroys the soul.
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free."
- Ronald Wilson Reagan (1911-2004)
"Yours is the profession of arms, the will to win, the sure knowledge that in war there is no substitute for victory; that if you lose, the nation will be destroyed; that the very obsession of your public service must be: Duty, Honor, Country."
Subscribe in a reader
Rate Me on BlogHop.com!
help?
to reform the healthcare delivery system in a way that will not involve the government and which will be considerably less costly than the Democrat plan. 
