Obama: Healthcare is my Waterloo

Obama: Healthcare is my Waterloo


 This is it…

President Barack Obama had exhausted most of his health care reform arguments with members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus during a White House meeting last Thursday when he made a more personal pitch that resonated with many skeptics in the room.

One caucus member told POLITICO that Obama won him over by “essentially [saying] that the fate of his presidency” hinged on this week’s health reform vote in the House. The member, who requested anonymity, likened Obama’s remarks to an earlier meeting with progressives when the president said a victory was necessary to keep him “strong” for the next three years of his term.

Another caucus member, Rep. Jose Serrano (D-N.Y.), said, “We went in there already knowing his presidency would be weakened if this thing went down, but the president clearly reinforced the impression the presidency would be damaged by a loss.”

Added Serrano: “He was subtle, but that was the underlying theme of the meeting — the importance of passing this for the health of the presidency.”

Read More:

Democrats Post Health Care Bill Online, Setting Up Possible Sunday Vote

Democrats Post Health Care Bill Online, Setting Up Possible Sunday Vote

March 18th, 2010


House Democrats on Thursday unveiled their highly anticipated package of changes to the Senate health care reform bill, setting up a potential floor vote for Sunday and putting pressure on Republicans intent on finding a way to stop it.

The updated package was posted online, starting the 72-hour clock on when the House can vote on it.

Click here to review the bill and its changes.

House Democrats prefaced the release of the bill by announcing that it would achieve the deficit reductions needed to push forward with a delicate strategy to finalize the package.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the updated package would cost $940 billion over the next decade without adding to the deficit.


Click on the image of the bill above to read the whole thing….

Read More:

‘Shaming’ her in-laws costs 19 year old her nose, ears

“When they cut off my nose and ears, I passed out,” 19-year-old Bibi Aisha of Afghanistan says with chilling candor.

Her beauty is still stunning and her confidence inspiring. It takes a moment for the barbaric act committed against her to register in your mind and sight.

Wearing her patterned scarf and with roughly painted nails she shares her story.

“It felt like there was cold water in my nose, I opened my eyes and I couldn’t even see because of all the blood,” she remembers.

It was an act of Taliban justice for the crime of shaming her husband’s family.

This story began when Aisha was just 8 years old.

Her father had promised her hand in marriage, along with that of her baby sister’s, to another family in a practice called “baad.”

“Baad” in Pashtunwali, the law of the Pashtuns, is a way to settle a dispute between rival families.

At 16, she was handed over to her husband’s father and 10 brothers, who she claims were all members of the Taliban in Oruzgan province. Aisha didn’t even meet her husband because he was off fighting in Pakistan.

“I spent two years with them and became a prisoner,” she says. (Watch more of the interview with Aisha)

Tortured and abused, she couldn’t take it any longer and decided to run away. Two female neighbors promising to help took her to Kandahar province.

But this was just another act of deception.

When they arrived to Kandahar her female companions tried to sell Aisha to another man.

All three women were stopped by the police and imprisoned. Aisha was locked up because she was a runaway. And although running away is not a crime, in places throughout Afghanistan it is treated as one if you are a woman.

A three-year sentence was reduced to five months when President Hamid Karzai pardoned Aisha. But eventually her father-in-law found her and took her back home.

That was the first time she met her husband. He came home from Pakistan to take her to Taliban court for dishonoring his family and bringing them shame.

The court ruled that her nose and ears must be cut off. An act carried out by her husband in the mountains of Oruzgan where they left her to die.

But she survived.

And with the help of an American Provincial Reconstruction Team in Oruzgan and the organization Women for Afghan Women (WAW), she is finally getting the help and protection she needs.

Offers have been pouring in to help Aisha, but there are many more women suffering in silence.

The United Nations estimates that nearly 90 percent of Afghanistan’s women suffer from some sort of domestic abuse. This in a country where there are only about eight women’s shelters to provide sanctuary from the cruelty they face. And all of the eight are privately run.

“Bibi Aisha is only one example of thousands of girls and women in Afghanistan and throughout the world who are treated this way – who suffer abuses like this, like this and worse,” says board member for WAW, Esther Hyneman.

In 2001, the situation of Afghan women and Taliban brutality received plenty of attention. Now organizations like WAW say the international community is strangely silent on the issue.

Hyneman says not enough is being done to help the women in Afghanistan and that feeds into the hands of the insurgency.

“When you have … 50 percent of a population on their knees, it’s very easy for extremists, tyrants to take over a country,” she adds. “They have a ready-made enslaved population.”

Aisha is reminded of that enslavement every time she looks in the mirror.

But there still times she can laugh. And at that moment you see her teenage spirit escaping a body that has seen a lifetime of injustice

At Correspondents’ Dinner, Biden Quips They’re Obama’s ‘Base’

At Correspondents’ Dinner, Biden Quips They’re Obama’s ‘Base’

Recycling a theme which President Barack Obama used last year at media dinners, that shows self-awareness of how journalists are allies, headlining Wednesday night’s Radio and Television Correspondents Association dinner carried live on C-SPAN2, Vice President Joe Biden quipped those in the audience are Obama’s “base.” One of Biden’s lines:

The truth is I can’t believe I’m here with you guys tonight. Here I am, the first Irish Catholic Vice President in the history of the United States of America. Barack Obama, the first African-American in the history of the United States of America. He’s hosting a St. Patrick’s day dinner and I’m here with you all [audience laughter]. Go figure. He’s with my base, I’m with his.

That elicited groans from the audience of journalists at the Washington Convention Center. Too close to the truth?

At last year’s RTCA dinner, held in June, Obama wondered: “Why bother hanging out with celebrities when I can spend time with the people who made me one?”

Five weeks earlier, at the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner, Obama observed: “Most of you covered me. All of you voted for me. [pause] Apologies to the Fox table.”

Obama Pleads To Dems: My Presidency Is On The Line

Obama Pleads To Dems: My Presidency Is On The Line

March 18th, 2010 Posted By Pat Dollard.


It’s all about him…


President Barack Obama had exhausted most of his health care reform arguments with members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus during a White House meeting last Thursday when he made a more personal pitch that resonated with many skeptics in the room.

One caucus member told POLITICO that Obama won him over by “essentially [saying] that the fate of his presidency” hinged on this week’s health reform vote in the House. The member, who requested anonymity, likened Obama’s remarks to an earlier meeting with progressives when the president said a victory was necessary to keep him “strong” for the next three years of his term.

Another caucus member, Rep. Jose Serrano (D-N.Y.), said, “We went in there already knowing his presidency would be weakened if this thing went down, but the president clearly reinforced the impression the presidency would be damaged by a loss.”

Added Serrano: “He was subtle, but that was the underlying theme of the meeting — the importance of passing this for the health of the presidency.”

White House officials said Obama’s recent remarks aren’t intended to personalize the debate or rally undecided Democratic members with an egocentric, “win one for Barry” message. They said Obama’s point is to hammer home the idea that all Democrats would benefit from a health care win and that the party’s larger policy agenda would be damaged if the president were to lose.

Still, all told, it’s a little more drama than Democrats are used to getting from Obama. And while it’s not the only argument being made by Obama administration and pro-reform allies on the Hill, it’s an increasingly important one as Democrats seek to sway a handful of health care holdouts ahead of an anticipated vote this weekend.

Moreover, there’s an unmistakable sense that the health care debate is fast moving past a discussion of the bill’s merits, beyond the all-consuming anxieties of incumbents and into an existential battle to preserve Obama’s presidency.

“The White House is raising the stakes so high, they are basically telling [House Democrats] that failure is not an option unless you want to sink the president,” said health industry lobbyist Steve Elmendorf, a onetime adviser to Rep. Dick Gephardt, a former Democratic leader.

Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), one of Obama’s closest allies in the health reform push, was more than willing to lay out a post-health-care doomsday scenario for Democrats and Obama should they fail.

“The first risk [of a health care defeat] is that he loses the reelect,” she said. “I think the risk to Congress is that his approval rating goes so low, he does not have enough heft to lift other important things we want to work on. … So this is a gut check. He’s got so much to lose by continuing to push for something that’s not going to be immediately popular. It’s not going to be popular by November; it’s not going to be popular by November of 2012. It’ll be popular 10 years from now.”

House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) has been telling Democratic fence sitters they are “deluding themselves” if they think Obama’s loss of prestige following a defeat won’t hurt them.

“There are serious implications of losing on President Obama’s ability to be effective for the rest of his three years in office,” Waxman told POLITICO. “That’s a message [undecided members] need to hear. If they don’t think that affects them if they are reelected, they are burying their heads in the sand.”

But many Democrats simply aren’t buying it after months of what they view as Obama’s disengagement from the health care battle.

“We’ve always known he’s a fourth-quarter player, and it’s great to see him on the field,” said an aide to a senior House Democrat. “So why did he sit on the sidelines for the last eight months?”

Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.), a firm “no” vote, has politely rebuffed feelers from Obama’s staff and rejects the idea that he can’t survive a defeat on health care.

“The White House calls me and says, ‘How are you doing?’” Lynch said. “I say, ‘I’m doing fine, but I’m not voting for this bill.’ … I don’t buy the argument that he’s done if this doesn’t pass. He’s got three more years. He can recover.”

Republicans said that playing the Obama card is an intensely risky proposition, arguing that Democrats on the Hill will resent him even more if he talks them into jumping off a cliff.

“As a legislator, you don’t want to be forced to pick between your constituents and the president — that’s a false choice,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who opposes the reform bill but has been a willing negotiating partner with the administration on other issues.

“Every president does this; Bush did this to me,” Graham added.

“His people said, ‘This president’s credibility is on the line,’ and I said, ‘Well, my judgment’s on the line.’ You try to make people vote your way using whatever tactics you can think of on big issues. … But unlike any other vote I have seen for a very long time, this one will define you; this becomes part of your legacy. You’ll be explaining this vote for a very, very long time — long after President Obama has been marginalized.”

Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), chairwoman of the Progressive Caucus, added, “This isn’t about the president; this is about 47 million people who don’t have health insurance. … There’s no argument beyond the moral imperative.”

Still, the idea of Obama in peril seemed to play a part in the no-to-yes flip by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), who told reporters Wednesday that his decision was influenced by four conversations with Obama and “a real sense of compassion” for the tough time the president is having pushing the bill through.

Obama hasn’t made himself the central closing argument with the majority of legislators — in part, because most Democrats are already keenly aware of his dilemma. In private talks with lawmakers, he’s largely focused on carefully tailored responses to each legislator’s policy concerns and articulating the moral argument for reform.

Part of his high-road approach is dictated by his personal style, but part is a result of GOP accusations that Democrats engaged in secret sweetheart deals like the “Louisiana Purchase” and the “Cornhusker Kickback.”

“I think the process that the president has been engaged in over the past several months has in many ways been to clean up where that process went wrong at the end of last year,” press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters on Tuesday.

But that doesn’t mean arms aren’t being twisted. Democratic donors are letting wavering Democratic incumbents know that their wallets will slam shut with a “no” vote. And big unions, like the AFL-CIO, AFSCME and Service Employees International Union, are shelling out $11 million to run ads and inundate battleground districts, letting Democrats know that they have as much to fear from labor as they do from Republicans.

In some cases, labor and associated organizations have taken it one step further — threatening to bankroll primary challengers against conservative Democratic incumbents, including New York Rep. Mike McMahon, a firm “no” vote, and Arkansas Sen. Blanche Lincoln.

“It’s a stupid strategy,” said one conservative Democrat targeted by the unions. “They are hitting me from the left. I couldn’t say yes now if I wanted to. … It would be seen as caving into their pressure.”

J.D. Hayworth vs. John McCain

J.D. Hayworth vs. John McCain

Posted on | February 25, 2010

Thanks to Barbara Espinosa at American Freedom for highlighting this issue-by-issue comparison:

John McCain
— Opposed the Bush tax cuts. Voted against repealing the Death Tax. The Club for Growth says McCain’s overall record on taxes “is profoundly disturbing and anti-growth.”
J.D. Hayworth — Helped to author the Bush tax cuts and supports repealing the Death Tax. JD has a higher lifetime rating from Citizens Against Government Waste than John McCain does.

John McCain —
Voted FOR the big bank bailouts and proposed an additional $300 Billion bailout of all bad debts, making the taxpayers responsible for the bad decisions of others.
J.D. Hayworth — Opposed the big bank bailouts, opposed the Obama plan, and opposed the McCain plan to leave taxpayers holding the bag for the nation’s bad loans.

John McCain —
Wrote the bill granting amnesty to millions of illegal aliens. McCain’s bill was estimated to cost the taxpayers more than $2.6 Trillion.
J.D. Hayworth — Helped lead the fight against the McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill. JD is a national leader in the fight to secure our borders and protect our nation.

John McCain  —
Opposed the Federal Marriage Amendment that would have protected and preserved marriage as between one man and one woman.
J.D. Hayworth — Marriage Supported the Federal Amendment and believes it is critical that marriage be protected from those who would redefine it.

John McCain —
Co-authored the McCain-Lieberman Cap and Trade bill.
J.D. Hayworth — Cap and Trade Opposes all Cap and Trade legislation and rejects phony climate change data.

John McCain —
Authored the McCain-Feingold legislation that violated the First Amendment rights of every American and silenced conservative groups like Right to Life and the NRA.
J.D. Hayworth — Opposed McCain-Feingold and believes that a free and vigorous debate is always in the best interests of our state and our nation.

John McCain —
Opposes enhanced interrogation techniques, supports closing Guantanamo Bay, and supports treating terrorists like criminal defendants instead of enemy combatants.
J.D. Hayworth — Supports our military and its use of enhanced interrogation techniques. Believes that Guantanamo Bay should remain open and that terrorists should be treated as such.

John McCain —
Voted to confirm this far-left activist.
J.D. Hayworth — Opposed the confirmation of Eric Holder as Attorney General of the United States.

Is Obama anti-Semitic? Netanyahu brother-in-law causes ruckus.

Is Obama anti-Semitic? Netanyahu brother-in-law causes ruckus.

The office of Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Wednesday rejected the remarks of his brother-in-law Hagai Ben Artzi, who called President Obama ‘anti-Semitic.’ But how many other Israelis share Mr. Ben Artzi’s view?

Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu distanced himself Wednesday from the views of his brother-in-law, who called President Obama anti-Semitic.
(Gil Cohen Magen/Reuters)

By Joshua Mitnick Correspondent
posted March 17, 2010 at 12:34 pm EDT

Tel Aviv —At the height of the worst Israel-US crisis in decades, Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was forced to distance himself Wednesday from the views of his brother-in-law, who called President Obama “anti-Semitic” over the airwaves this morning.

In an interview with Israel Army Radio on Wednesday, Hagai Ben Artzi, the brother of Netanyahu’s wife Sara, reportedly said: “it needs to be said clearly and simply: There is an anti-Semitic president in the US. It’s not that Obama doesn’t sympathize with [Mr. Netanyahu]. He doesn’t sympathize with the people of Israel.”

Netanyahu’s office swifty published a condemnation: “I entirely reject the remarks of Hagai Ben Artzi.”

IN PICTURES: Israeli settlements

Family ties?

Mr. Ben Artzi, who has a history of controversial remarks, is family in more than one way.

The hardliner – who’s held positions as a bible lecturer at a religious college in Jerusalem, and in the Education Ministry, and has a doctorate in Israel thought and philosophy from Hebrew University in Jerusalem – also represents the family of hawkish nationalists who support Netanyahu and for whom any movement on the peace process is going to stir tension.

The Israeli daily Haaretz reported that Knesset Member Michael Ben Ari of the far-right National Union party recently hung a poster with a picture in which Obama looks like he is bowing to a Gulf prince, underneath a headline, “Caution! [Palestine Liberation Organization] Agent in the White House!”

Suspicion of Obama

So how widespread are those views of Obama in Israel?

The opinions recall suspicions voiced about Obama in Israel during his run for the presidency that were based on his Muslim relatives and a former pastor whose sermons occasionally included remarks considered anti-Semitic.

Mitchell Barak, a pollster who used to work with Netanyahu, says there is widespread alienation among Israelis regarding Obama, whom many consider the US president most unsympathetic to Israel for decades.

That said, both Ben Artzi and Ben Ari represent fringe opinions, says Mr. Barak.

“The problem with the extremist right groups,” he says, “is that they can’t recognize anyone that doesn’t shares the opinions of their own group.”

Deadly Triumvirate Destroying America

Deadly Triumvirate Destroying America


Friday, March 12, 2010
Here’s the quotation of the century, providing a critically important insight I’ve never seen stated before. Read it and weep; read it again and then act:

 “The danger to America is not Barack Obama, but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the presidency. It will be easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to an electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails us. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The republic can survive a Barack Obama. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president.”

 My friend who sent me this gem, Dick Bachert of Atlanta, said it was too bad the author is unknown, but whoever the author, he deserves a Pulitzer for his brief but powerful insight. I would, however, dish up some blame not only for the public but for other groups as well.

 Perhaps the primary blame should be assigned to the mainstream media, which gave Barack Hussein Obama a free pass. The mainstream media by and large reported only the positive news on Mr. Obama. They downplayed or censored out all the negative news, as documented by Bernard Goldberg in his important book, A Slobbering Love Affair: The True (But Pathetic) Story of the Torrid Romance Between Barack Obama and the Mainstream Media.

His record was clear. He associated with bigots, racists, terrorists, America-haters and others, which citizens of the greatest country in the history of the world would almost automatically avoid. He had a record of radical leftism and liberalism and one of the most highly partisan records. He broke key campaign promises even before the campaign was over, such as his promise to take public funding for his campaign. He showed a propensity to prevaricate, as when he claimed to have never really heard the radical views of his pastor of 20 years, Rev. Jeremiah “God Damn America” Wright, who was also his close associate. His record revealed no substantial accomplishments, but an opportunist who merely used his positions as jumping off to the next occupational advancement. He arrived in the Senate, and almost immediately started running for the presidency, leaving behind a legacy of virtually no accomplishment. He had a record of saying what voters wanted to hear, despite his record, his associates, and his real values and views. During the campaign and during his presidency, he has lied on almost every important occasion. He knows his friends in the mainstream media won’t blow the whistle on him.

The mainstream media ignored the negative information, even though it was conveniently available in three excellent books on Mr. Obama: Jerome Corsi, Obamination, David Freddoso, The Case Against Barack Obama, and Brad O’Leary, The Audacity of Deceit. And the media continued to ignore later books critical of Mr. Obama such as Michelle Malkin’s classic, Culture of Corruption.

 Any observer could figure out Mr. Obama and right during the campaign I referred to him as the biggest fraud, faker, phony, fibber, and America-hater in our presidential history. Despite his record, the public – relying on information from the mainstream media – did not get the whole Obama story. So, he ascended to the most important position in the world and in America without being vetted, and, thus, the mainstream media sold the public a false and incomplete version of Mr. Obama. America bought a cat (and a radical) in a bag.

 Proof of how the mainstream media can mislead the public came forth again after the Health-care Summit. Observers said one positive result of the Summit was the public finally understanding that the Congressional Republicans had been offering extensive alternatives to ObamaCare. The Congressional Republicans were the “Party of No” when it came to radical health-care reform and ObamaCare, but were the “Party of Yes, Yes, and Yes” to many proposals to lower costs and extend access without destroying and disrupting the system, the insurance coverage, and the doctor-patient relationship which the vast majority of people were happy with. However, the mainstream media were not reporting on the Republican proposals, but were merely dismissing the Republicans as the “Party of No.” Consequently, until the Summit, the public wasn’t getting the basic facts about the difference between the parties.

 This boils down to the biased, dishonest, and fraudulent mainstream media posing a mortal threat to the survival of our democracy. If America is to survive as the greatest country on earth, it requires an informed citizenry getting the information needed to make sound judgments. That’s not happening now, and until it does happen we’ll be under the shadow of an existential threat.

So, the public better start going out of its way to get both sides of the issue. That means they have to stop relying on the mainstream media as the exclusive source of news and commentary. They should look to conservative publications that give another point of view. For starters I’d recommend one or more of the leading conservative magazines: The National Review, The Weekly Standard, Human Events, The American Spectator, NewsMax, and Townhall.com.

 I’d also recommend the leading conservative papers in hard copy or in Web editions such as The Washington Times, The Washington Examiner, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Post, Investor’s Business Daily (IBD), and locally, The Bulletin. As I’ve often noted in my Bulletin columns, the two pages of editorials and commentary in each IBD are the best two pages in American journalism.

In the television broadcast field, there is the Fox Cable News Network with people such as Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, Glenn Beck, and Greta van Susteren. And there is an extensive army of conservative talk radio hosts led by Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Bill Bennett, Mark Levin, Michael Medved, Dennis Prager, Michael Savage, Hugh Hewitt, Mike Gallagher, Greta Van Susteren, Laura Ingraham, Monica Crowley and others. All of these radio hosts listed above appear in Philadelphia on 990 AM and 1210 AM.

Among the richest sources of detailed information on the conservative side of the ledger are the foundations and institutes such as the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, the Cato Institute, the Manhattan Institute, and David Horowitz’s Freedom Center (publisher of FrontPageMag). In addition, there are vast resources on the Internet.

There are also specialized groups, some of the best focus on terrorism and related issues. One is Steve Emerson, Investigative Project on Terrorism. Another is Robert Spencer’s Jihad Watch. A third is Daniel Pipes’ Middle East Forum. And, finally, there is Brigette Gabriel’s Act for America.

 I’d also recommend boycotting the mainstream media. You might start by cancelling your subscription to The Philadelphia Inquirer, The New York Times, Time Magazine and Newsweek.

 In addition, I suggest you support and follow organizations that do battle against the abuses of the mainstream media. Two of the most prominent are Accuracy in Media (AIM) and the Media Research Center. Both have valuable web sites. AIM also maintains a Web site dedicated to boycotting The New York Times, the leader in media bias (www.boycottnyt.com; you can go there to sign its petition). There are also two which specialize in Middle East and anti-Israel reporting: camera.org and honestreporting.com.

The Media Research Center publishes a list on its Web site of links to various organizations which help expose or counter liberal media bias in the mainstream press. Many of the links are to the Web sites of the publications or personalities already mentioned in this column. Among those not mentioned above are Accuracy in Academia, Don Feder’s Cold Steel Caucus Report, The Drudge Report, FreeRepublic.com, National Rifle Association, Oliver North and World Net Daily.

 There is one other thing that should happen to stop the mainstream media from defrauding the American public by a biased and dishonest picture of the world. This matter is so serious and poses such a threat to the survival of America, that politicians have to and should feel compelled to take up the issue. This does not mean they should try to regulate the media. But they should use their bully pulpits to educate the public on the fact and dangers of media bias.

It should also be noted that two other institutions are, in part, responsible for selling the American public the fraud that is Barack Obama. There are the major universities and colleges that have become home to education as biased, dishonest, and fraudulent as that of the mainstream media. These major universities are dedicated to indoctrination with a liberal and radical point of view rather than dedicated to education. David Horowitz has documented this problem in his books including The Professors and One Party Classroom: How Radical Professors at America’s Top Colleges Indoctrinate Students and Undermine Our Democracy. These major colleges have become centers of radicalism, anti-Americanism, anti-military, anti-conservative, and anti-Israel forces. Read a few of the professors’ biographies in The Professors and you’ll be shocked by educational leaders who are setting the course of American education. What’s worse, this indoctrination is already underway even in grades K-12.

Finally, responsibility for the fraud that is Barack Obama must also be placed on the Democratic Party. It is now under control of its extreme left-wing radical group. As a result, the Democratic Party has been willing to embrace radical and anti-American values and programs. This, too, has been documented by David Horowitz and Jacob Laskin in The Shadow Party: How George Soros, Hilary Clinton, and Sixties Radicals Seized Control of the Democratic Party. There is an even more ominous problem with the left, also documented by Mr. Horowitz in his book, The Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left.

If America’s citizens do not get informed, organized and tough to stop Barack Obama and his programs, Mr. Horowitz’s next book might well be entitled How Obama and a radical Democratic Party Proceeded to and Succeeded in Destroying America and the World.

Herb Denenberg can be reached at advocate@thebulletin.us.

Perhaps it is time for Obama to formally recuse himself from issues involving Israel given his Muslim background and anti-Israel bias?

Perhaps it is time for Obama to formally recuse himself from issues involving Israel given his Muslim background and anti-Israel bias?

Barack Obama Continues to Race Full Throttle toward Oblivion

 By John Lillpop  Tuesday, March 16, 2010

CNN’s Jack Cafferty is many different things to different people. However, the one thing that Cafferty will never be accused of is being a conservative. That is just not in his DNA or genetic makeup.

Yet there he was, on CNN no less, claiming that the Obama campaign promise concerning transparency was but another Obama “lie told to get elected.”

Excuse me? Is this the same CNN that has literally been a cheer leader for the One over the past two years?

The only logical explanation is that CNN is experiencing a network-wide spiritual awakening. No other answer makes sense.

Obama’s problems with the truth are hardly the only burr in his knickers these days. There is the little matter of Israel and the sacking of Joe Biden last week.

Obama’s tirade against Israel since then is unprecedented. Only Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad holds Israel in greater contempt than The One, with the main difference being that at least Ahmadinejad is open about his hatred for all Jews and the Jewish state.

Barack Obama, on the other hand, has tried to mask his contempt and has, alas, failed miserably.

Perhaps it is time for Obama to formally recuse himself from issues involving Israel given his Muslim background and anti-Israel bias?

The Obama Administration’s Bias Against Israel

The Obama Administration’s Bias Against Israel

2010 March 17

I am mad as hell and I am not going to take this anymore. David Axelrod, President Obama’s senior advisor stated on Meet the Press that Israel’s decision and announcement, during Vice-President Biden’s Middle East visit, to build 1600 new housing units in Jerusalem was “an affront and was an insult…This announcement was very destructive.” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was also “insulted.”

This administration as well as others has a convenient loss of memory. Between 1949 and 1967 East Jerusalem was under Jordanian control. During that time, Jews were not allowed to pray at the Western Wall, fifty-eight synagogues and Jewish schools were destroyed in the Old City, and the Jewish cemetery of the Mount of Olives was systematically desecrated.

Why am I angry? The Obama administration continues to single out Israel. John Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, has been quoted that “The Obama administration believes that Israel is as much or more of a problem as it is an ally, at least until Israel’s disagreements with its neighbors are resolved.” As an American and a Jew I am insulted with this administration’s outrageous and inflammatory statements.

Granted, the timing of the announcement was not politically correct, but let’s talk about political correctness. Remember in June 2008, when then-Presidential candidate Obama stated that “Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.” One day later he retracted the statement on CNN stating “Well, obviously, it’s going to be up to the parties to negotiate a range of these issues. And Jerusalem will be part of those negotiations.”

The UN human rights council passed 33 “condemnatory resolutions” and 27 of them condemned Israel. Meanwhile, Hamas, Hezbollah, and other Arab terrorists enjoyed exculpatory immunity. One example that stands out is a resolution that called for Israel to lift its checkpoints in the Palestinian territories but never addressed the human rights issue of stopping suicide bombing attacks. Wasn’t this toxic to the peace process and why was the Obama administration silent?

Last year Israel’s chief of staff, Lt. General Gabi Ashkenazi came to the United States to talk about Iran’s nuclear program. Washington made it clear that nobody in a policy-making position was available to meet him. This included the president, Vice President Joseph Biden, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, National Intelligence director Dennis Blair, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen. I guess this was not supposed be insulting either.

President Obama has to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. He can argue that ever since Israel controlled Jerusalem it has protected and allowed all the different religions to express their beliefs at the various holy sites. In doing this he can end his administration’s destructive and degrading policies.