Author Archives: Editor

Why Ending Bush Tax Cuts Of Americans Making Over $250,000 Is Not A Good Idea

If the Democrat economic plan were not primarily beneficial to government coffers, I would be for it.
I serious doubt the economy will benefit greatly by merely maintaining the Bush tax cuts for the middle. Those with incomes over $250,000 may benefit more, but they also have more disposable income to spend. Spending helps maintain GDP. More importantly, it maintains tax revenues. Therefore, I have to agree with the Republicans. Raising taxes on anyone during a prolonged economic recession is not a good idea. Because the high-income group has more disposable income to spend, they are key to keeping a modicum of economic stability.

Democrats are doing a very poor job of making themselves look good. They are showing Americans that their agendas are more important than the common good.

Someone is bound to respond: Well, duh!

However, when looking at taxation and economic growth in the long-term, I think Americans with taxable incomes over $250,000 should pay considerable higher taxes.

How could that be good?

First, it’s contiguous with founding idea of economic liberty. Thomas Jefferson is representative of a large numbers early Americans who believed the rich should pay for government services to the poor. They believed it was immoral for rich Americans to have much while poor Americans lacked. Thomas Jefferson was no welfare socialists either. Like many others, he opposed low paying wage labor because it was a form of slavery.

Second, the rich paying for welfare to the poor should inspire them to change the political economy engendering poverty and welfare. Jefferson seemed to think making the rich pay to help the poor would motivate the wealthy to devise programs to ensure the poor actually gained skills by which to earn high incomes in order to live independent of rich charity or tax funded government services. I suspect Jefferson would have favored living wage standards as opposed to minimum wages.

Lastly, it seems unjust for the working poor and the middle class to pay for problems created by the wealthy and societal institutions. The Courts didn’t have to encourage the working poor to adopt socialism in order establish economic rights against big manufacturing firms. The Courts could have forced Congress to deal with the issue of low wage slavery. Against the ready argument that freedom of contract and market value would be violated, the Courts and other authorities could have applied Adam Smith’s capitalistic view that large manufacturing corporations were quasi-government institutions requiring regulation, i.e., regulation to prevent low wage slavery. It was the founding generation, those like Jefferson, who thought it unjust to tax all Americans (including the working poor and middle class) to cover the problems of the poor.

Remember, Jefferson wrote “all men were created equal,” which appears not to mean equal opportunity to pay taxes for welfare.

Besides all of that, the stock markets have not declined to 1990 levels, which indicate a somewhat healthy economy still exists–that is if a political economy can be regarded as such. It is healthy because those making over $250,000, like the Democrat and Republican politicians on Capitol Hill, are working to keep their stock portfolios profitable.

Continental Congress Thanksgiving Proclamation, 1782

The following is a reproduction of the First Thanksgiving Proclamation of the Continental Congress. It also provides evidence that under our constitutional form of government (albeit, the first constitution) the United States of America was in fact a Christian nation. It seems illogical to either appeal to or thank the god of deism who is no longer involved in human affairs. Only the biblical God is involved in the daily affairs of men and states. Thus, the following official state proclamation calls for collective gratitude to the Judeo-Christian God.

——————–

IT being the indispensable duty of all Nations, not only to offer up their supplications to ALMIGHTY GOD, the giver of all good, for his gracious assistance in a time of distress, but also in a solemn and public manner to give him praise for his goodness in general, and especially for great and signal interpositions of his providence in their behalf: Therefore the United States in Congress assembled, taking into their consideration the many instances of divine goodness to these States, in the course of the important conflict in which they have been so long engaged; the present happy and promising state of public affairs; and the events of the war, in the course of the year now drawing to a close; particularly the harmony of the public Councils, which is so necessary to the success of the public cause; the perfect union and good understanding which has hitherto subsisted between them and their Allies, notwithstanding the artful and unwearied attempts of the common enemy to divide them; the success of the arms of the United States, and those of their Allies, and the acknowledgment of their independence by another European power, whose friendship and commerce must be of great and lasting advantage to these States:—– Do hereby recommend to the inhabitants of these States in general, to observe, and request the several States to interpose their authority in appointing and commanding the observation of THURSDAY the twenty-eight day of NOVEMBER next, as a day of solemn THANKSGIVING to GOD for all his mercies: and they do further recommend to all ranks, to testify to their gratitude to GOD for his goodness, by a cheerful obedience of his laws, and by promoting, each in his station, and by his influence, the practice of true and undefiled religion, which is the great foundation of public prosperity and national happiness.

Done in Congress, at Philadelphia, the eleventh day of October, in the year of our LORD one thousand seven hundred and eighty-two, and of our Sovereignty and Independence, the seventh.

JOHN HANSON, President.
Charles Thomson, Secretary.

PRINTED AT EXETER.

Justice Scalia: Founders Never Imagined Abortion “Rights”

By Steven Ertelt

In a speech at the University of Richmond in Virginia on Friday, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia confirmed again his view that the Constitution contains no so-called abortion rights.

He told the audience during his speech, that is only now drawing attention, that the founders of the nation never envisioned a right to an abortion when drafting the Constitution that is supposed to guide the federal courts.

Scalia criticized, according to an AP report, those who misinterpret the 14th Amendment’s due process clause to include abortion.

“But some of the liberties the Supreme Court has found to be protected by that word—liberty—nobody thought constituted a liberty when the 14th Amendment was adopted,” Scalia said. “Abortion? It was criminal in all the states.”

Scalia repeated his view that the Constitution should be taken literally, as written, rather than interpreting it to include rights not intended to be protected under law.

“The Constitution says what it says and it doesn’t say anything more. For flexibility, all you need is a legislature and a ballot box,” he added, in terms of how abortion advocates should attempt to change the constitution if they want to have legal abortions.

By allowing the Supreme Court to create rights not enumerated by the Constitution – “you’re allowing five out of nine hotshot lawyers to run the country.”

“Unless the words have meaning and unless judges give them their fair meaning, democracy doesn’t work,” Scalia said during an address entitled “Do Words Matter?”

Earlier this year, Scalia spoke at a conference sponsored by the Mississippi College School of Law and condemned activists who back the use of international law in the U.S. legal system, saying they are selective when they want to use it.

Scalia oppose the use of international law and decisions by foreign courts to interpret the Constitution.

“If there was any thought absolutely foreign to the founders of our country, surely it was the notion that we Americans should be governed the way Europeans are,” he said, according to the Jackson Free Press newspaper.

“I dare say that few of us here would want our life or liberty subject to the disposition of French or Italian criminal justice—not because those systems are unjust, but because we think ours is better,” the pro-life jurist added.

But Scalia says those who advocate using foreign law do so selectively and ignore how many foreign laws oppose abortion and foreign courts have issued decisions allowing pro-life laws and abortion restrictions.

“I will become a believer in the ingenuousness, though never the propriety, of the Court’s newfound respect for the wisdom of foreign minds when it applies that wisdom in the abortion cases,” Scalia said.

[Thank God for Justice Scalia and his view]

This article was orginially published by LiteNews.com, November 23, 2010

Thanksgiving, Roots of Freedom

Thanksgiving is a unique national religious holiday. It was the first religious celebration for the settling and founding of the American state. As noted in previous posts, the first Thanksgiving Day proclamation was in 1619 at the Berkeley Plantation state. The plantations were states because they formed civil societies based on natural law. Later in colonial history, the plantations began forming constitutional forms of governance as well as a confederation. In 1776, all plantation states came together to create the United States of America and to form the first national constitution. All of which, conformed to the Law of Nations.

All of the plantation states were formed based on two-part compacts. Like our national compact consisting of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, the plantation states (colonies) were founded by a written covenant. The Plymouth Combination is the most famous version.

Although Thanksgiving became a national holiday in the 1960s, there have perpetual proclamations like the Berkeley Plantation Proclamation and many national proclamations like the Continental Thanksgiving Proclamation, for example President George Washington’s Thanksgiving Day Proclamation. Throughout American history, each and every Thanksgiving Proclamation has been a call for collective gratitude to the biblical God with whom the governed consented to covenant with at the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

Therefore, it behooves Americans to continue to repent of wrongs done against God and to offer thanks for helping our ancestors to gain the freedom and inherent rights. Like Esau of biblical history, we have in large measure forfeited our birthright for bread and circus. It might be a good time to reflect on how to regain that birthright of independence as defined in the natural law Declaration of Independence and the Bible.

As a starting point, we might consider the Proclamation given by President George Washington:

Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; and Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me “to recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:”

Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enable to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted’ for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us.

And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions; to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have show kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best.

Washington also was known to preach biblical sermons to the troops when he though necessary during the Revolutionary War.

First Official Thanksgiving in America

Each first Sunday in November a Thanksgiving Festival is held at the Berkeley Plantation in accordance with documentation from 1619. The event fulfills instructions given to the 38 settlers who arrived on the banks of the James River at Berkeley Hundred as documented in the proclamation:

“Wee ordaine that the day of our ships arrival at the place assigned for plantacon in the land of Virginia shall be yearly and perpetually kept holy as a day of thanksgiving to Almighty God.”

The settlers set sail in a ship called The Margaret from the Port of Bristol in England, where at the Berkeley Castle funding for the journey was supplied by landowners including Sir Richard Berkeley and William Throckmorton. Agriculture was going through difficult times and many people in the area wanted to start a new life for themselves in America, and so they joined the leaders Sir John Woodleefe, George Thorpe, and John Smyth, who had planned this remarkable and historic voyage. Although they encountered severe weather that delayed their journey, the landing on December 4, 1619, is well documented by the Virginia Company of London.

Charles Berkeley from the Berkeley Castle stressed in his speech for the 1994 Virginia First Thanksgiving Festival that “this was the first thanksgiving to be held on American soil but it was not officially recognized until President Kennedy’s term of office in the 1960s, as beforehand the Pilgrim Fathers were considered to have been the first American settlers to offer Thanksgiving. The Berkeleys in fact preceded them . . . .”

Former Virginia Governor Mills Godwin summarized the setting well in his 1981 remarks: “Berkeley has been a working plantation in Virginia since 1619, and a handsome brick manor house was built here early in the 18th Century. Here was born Benjamin Harrison, V, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and a post-Revolutionary Governor of Virginia, and his son, William Henry Harrison, the ninth President of the United States. Today, while privately owned, Berkeley has been magnificently restored and is open to the public as one of America’s distinguished historic shrines.”

As we express our gratitude at these Thanksgiving events, so we live out our words by offering thanks, remembering the past, and pledging to continue the great legacy of those before us who celebrated perpetually . . . and look forward to a great future in this free nation.

Source: Covenant News Newswire, November 21, 2005

FED’s $600 Billion Quantative Easing Tax, Is it Necessary?

Charles Plosser, CEO of Philadelphia’s Federal Reserve, addressed an audience at Cato Institute on the topic of employing monetary policy to prevent asset bubbles, which caused the current recession. He told the audience that using monetary policy to adjust interest rates in order to compensate for asset price gaps (bubbles) was not a good idea. One example given was raising rate on mortgages to restrict rising housing prices. Two reasons for being against employing broad-based monetary policy for individual asset markets like housing were: (1) The risk of wrecking havoc in other parts of the economy is too great, and (2) no precise measure of asset-movement exists by which to form sound rule-based monetary policy. (Read his Cato speech titled “Bubble, Bubble, Toil and Trouble: A Dangerous Brew for Monetary Policy.)

John Mauldin, CEO of Millenium Wave Advisers, came to a similar conclusion about Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke’s decision to inflate the economy through the latest $600 billion quantitative easing. Bernake’s reason was to prevent deflation, which means core inflation rate as measured by the Consumer Price Index (CPI) dropped below 1 percent. Core inflation is all consumer goods except food and energy. Mauldin claims core inflation is actually about 1.5% not 0.6% when housing costs are removed.

There seems to be two reasons Mauldin measures inflation without housing costs: (1) Historically, the Bernanke should have used monetary policy to lower an increasingly high inflation rate back in 2005 that was caused by the housing price bubble. (2) More important is the fact that over the past few years housing cost is growing at near zero percent (see the chart below).

If Puru Saxena, CEO of Hong Kong based Puru Saxena Wealth Management, is right, Bernake’s quantitative easing will not revive the U.S. economy. Just like the previous two stimulus bailouts, quantitative easings never do. (Read his article titled “Band-Aid Solutions

What Bernanke’s cash infusion will do is devalue the dollar. This will causing food, energy, and everything else to rise, which will act as a tax on disposable income. Less disposable means fewer sales. As Mauldin also pointed out, food and energy costs already are high for those with lower income. These people will suffer the most as a result of the Fed’s easy quantitative induced inflation.

There are some creative ideas that could solve the housing price problem. For example, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and FHA could rent their growing stock of foreclosed houses, which would keep some people in their homes. Banks also could lend to investors (landlords) to buy cheap housing if they promise to rent them out. Read Maudlin’s article “O Deflation, Where is Thy Sting?” to learn more.

Sermon on the Mount : Property Rights

By Daniel Downs

As mentioned in the first post, the gospels of Matthew and Luke contain two versions of a sermon proclaimed by Jesus of Nazareth most likely from Mount Gerizim. This is where Moses told half of the tribal elders of Israel to reiterate the blessings for the keeping the law as the Israelites passed from the wilderness into the promised land (Deuteronomy 27:11-12; 28:1-14).

In the Sermon, Jesus pronounces blessings to the poor who faithfully follow God’s way. Those who do so become rich in two ways: First, their relationship with God makes them full of His presence and power enabling them to live according to the divine law. Jesus’ apostle Paul called it being filled with the Spirit. (Read his letter to the Ephesians) Second, they gain legal rights to the material and spiritual benefits of citizenship in the Kingdom of God. This means they have access to resources of the Creator. (See first post titled “Sermon on the Mount: Any Relevance Today?)

Jesus proceeds by pronouncing that those who mourn and weep will laugh again. In the world, problems arise whether because of mistakes, wrongdoing, injustices, natural disasters, or other forms of loss. Like Job, God comforts and restores. (See the second post titled Sermon on the Mount: From Weeping to Laughing)

The next blessing pronounced by Jesus is only recorded in the gospel of Matthew. It goes like this:

“Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth” (Matthew 5: 5).

I can think of only two reasons why Luke didn’t include it in his gospel. One possible reason is it was never part of Jesus’ sermon. The author of Matthew’s gospel included it because he was a Jew who had been trained to regard humility as a godly trait. Even though this blessing may not have been part of Jesus’ sermon, it was expected of those faithful to the law of God. Another possible reason is this: Being a citizen of the Roman Empire, Luke was trained to regard meekness as weakness. Romans regarded themselves as members of a superior race and culture than most others, for example, citizens of the always subjugated people of Palestine. This is the more likely reason.

The uniqueness of this part of Jesus Sermon is not just its singular mention in Matthew’s gospel; it is more exceptional because it was a quote taken from Psalms 37, which was itself the summation of a law of God:

“Rest in the Lord and wait patiently for him; do not fret because of him who prosper in his way or because of the man who carries out wicked schemes. Cease from anger and forsake wrath; do not fret; it only leads to doing evil. For evildoers will be cut off, but those who wait for the Lord, they shall inherit the earth. Yet a little while and the wicked will be no more; you will look carefully for his place and he will not be. But the meek will inherit the earth and will delight themselves in abundance” (7-11).

The above verses point the familiar reader back to Exodus when the Jews were delivered from the injustices of slavery in Egypt. The Jews were not forced into slavery just as a punishment for any wrong done while in Egypt. Rather, it was because they were foreigners whose population greatly increased. There large population made a paranoid dictator fearful about their allegiance. That is, Pharaoh feared they might join Egypt’s enemies to attacking and conquering Pharaoh and his empire. The easiest way to eliminate such a potential threat was to control all aspects of their lives, which meant to enslave them. (Exodus 1:8-11)   In this context, waiting on the Lord meant to continue being faithful to God and covenant law while waiting for God to execute justice. However, God told Abraham the Jews would be enslaved for 400 years in Egypt for two reasons: (1) their sins would lead them into it, and (2) the divine justice concerning the unrelenting sins of the Canaanites would take 400 years for completion. After which time, God promised the freedom of Jews and their right to possess the land previously promised to Abraham and to his descendents. (Genesis 15:13-16; Joshua 24:14; Deuteronomy 9:5-6; 12:29-31; 18:9-12)

The moral of the story is waiting in the right way leads to inheriting the promised land.

Inheriting and possessing land over which God reigns also will result in peace, freedom, and prosperity (Deuteronomy 7:12-14; 12:10; 25:19; 28:1-14). Because this promise included all faithful citizens of God’s reign, the collective or societal benefit of protection from enemies was implied. Yet, the individual aspect of the implied benefit was personal space within the land. Inclusive within this landed space was peace, a benefit of unhindered movement resulting from societal protection and prosperity; a related benefit was freedom of movement and work resulting from protection. Because God’s law required the promised land to be apportioned to each family according to need, title to that land was part of the inherited possession (Numbers 33:51-54). Prosperity didn’t equate to being as wealthy as Pharaohs, Caesars, Herods, or other tyrants. Prosperity meant having enough to meet the need of family and self as well as an abundance for tithes, offerings, showing hospitality to strangers, and helping others as need arose.

Jesus’ apostle Paul refers to the same when writing to the believers in Corinth about wealth and helping those suffering lack in Jerusalem because of famine. In the context of redemptive investments, Paul states that Jesus became poor that they (Corinthians and all believers) might become rich (2 Corinthians 8:9). He then defines what he meant by rich:

“God is able to make all grace abound to you, so that always having sufficiency for every need, you may have an abundance for every good work” (9:8).

By good work, Paul meant investing in the needy believers in Jerusalem. By doing so, they were cheerfully fulfilling kingdom law and increasing future returns all in the spirit of meekness. (Leviticus 25:35-37; Proverbs 19:17)

The ancient model of meekness was Moses (Numbers 12:3). Yet, Moses stood against Pharaoh face to face as God commanded. Moses led the Jews and others out of Egypt toward the promised land. Moses gave Israel the law of God. Moses led the warriors of Israel. Moses commanded the execution of Jews who had rebelled against the command and law of God. Moses interceded on behalf of the people in the face of God anger and judgment. Moses cared deeply about all of Israel. Moses trained Joshua for future leadership. Moses stood up to the opposition of jealous family members and others. However, the meekness of Moses was not defined by his courage. It was his caring and especially his obedience to God. God defended Moses against all opposition as Moses turned to God. That is, Moses trusted God. He trusted God because God carried out His word. Therefore, he was faithful to God. As a result, Moses waited on God. The one exception when he was angry about the faithless complaining of the people Moses went beyond God’s instruction. God used this as an object lesson by forbidding Moses from leading the Israel into the promised land. (Numbers 20:1-12)

In other words, not waiting on God leads to wrongdoing resulting in adverse consequences no matter who you are.

Notice, inherent in the English word “wait” consists of two implications: (1) it refers to duration of time during which a person waits for another person to respond, act or fulfill an agreement, or vise versa. (2) It more importantly refers to service to others i.e., to wait on a king, waiting on tables, etc. Just as Moses fulfilled both, those who heard Jesus’ sermon would have understood the same applied themselves. Waiting on the Lord meant waiting on God to act to enrich their lives with His wonderful presence and power, to comfort them during time of suffering, to lead them into possession of the benefits of the promise land.

The same audience also would have understood the purpose of God’s law of healing. The meek could not possess the earth if hindered by debilitating diseases. Consequently, citizens of God’s kingdom were to expect good health because they faithfully obeyed the law. (Exodus 23:25; Deuteronomy 7:12, 15) As the law promised good health, God also promised healing even if new diseases occurred. That is why healing was a prominent part of Jesus’ messianic work; the obedient were being restored in order to possess all of the benefits of the promise land.

So it is to be expected today.

The blessings of citizenship in God’s kingdom by covenant through faith in Jesus are promised to all. It is the fulfillment of God’s word to Abraham that through his descendents all peoples would be blessed. The Torah, songs of Israel (Psalms), and the proclamations of the Prophets contain the definition of the intended blessings. In his sermon from Mount Gerizim, Jesus reiterates the blessing. (Matthew 19:27-29; Luke 18:28-30; Mark 10:28-30)

The Danger in Tooth Fillings

I’ve been doing alot of research on the dangers of amalgam (silver-mercury) fillings over the past year or two. On December 2 I begin the process of having mine removed and am hoping many of my chronic health issues might go away. Everyone reacts differently to the mercury poisoning and usually symptons are subtle yet longterm. Because I feel this is important, especially if you have young children who may need a filling someday-educate yourself on the new information available on this health issue and help put an end to this outdated and dangerous procedure.

One recent information article on the subject is titled First Legal Victory to Ban Mercury from Amalgams publish at Mercola.com.

By Andy Meyer

Dutch journalist threatened with torture, death following letter condemning abortion

By Matthew Cullinan Hoffman,

Pro-life journalist Mariska Orbán de Haas says that she has received hundreds of death threats and more than ten threats of torture following the publication of an open letter she wrote to a pro-abortion parliamentarian asking her to reconsider her position on the subject.

The letter, which was addressed to Representative Jeannine Hennis-Plasschaert and published in the Katholiek Nieuwsblad (Catholic News), was written in response to Hennis-Plassschaert’s angry reaction after receiving a plastic fetal model from Catholic bishop Everard de Jong. The bishop had sent the models to Hennis-Plasschaert and all other members of the Dutch House of Representatives. He also included a letter in which he asked the representatives to stop the killing of the unborn in the face of impending budget restrictions, pointing out that defunding “bloody abortion clinics” would save money and help preserve future generations who could care for the elderly.

After Hennis-Plasschaert called the letter from the bishop “disgusting,” Orbán wrote to her publicly, pointing out that both she and Hennis-Plasschaert have experienced the suffering of miscarriages, and that the fetal model she received from Bishop De Jong would resemble their lost children at the time of their deaths.

“In that light,” asked Orbán, “is it not ‘disgusting’ that our society permits us to abort more than thirty thousand babies in the Netherlands every year?” She noted that children who die by abortion are “exactly the same as the mysterious little lives that we expectantly carried within us.”

The letter, published on October 27, sparked outrage in the largely liberal, pro-abortion Netherlands. Orbán soon offered a public apology, but that has not prevented her from receiving an avalanche of angry responses. French journalist Jeanne Smits reports that the letter has generated 350,000 tweets on Twitter, and various sites have created distorted pictures of her face, portraying her as a devil.

Orbán notes that she had never received such a response from readers, until she began writing as a Catholic journalist.

“I’ve previously pushed the boundaries as a journalist, in various subjects, but I’ve never had this kind of reaction,” said Orbán. “If you write something about the Catholic faith, then people react so very strongly.”

“I hear many liberals say that free speech is so important, but if you have Catholic views it’s obviously different,” she added.

This article was first published in LifeSiteNews.com, November 15, 2010.

Is Obama Pro-Israel?

The November 12th edition of The Progress Report, the politically progressive author argues that the Obama administration is supportive of Israel. The following is an excerpt of the post titled “Obama’s Pro-Israel Record”.

The ongoing disagreement over the settlements has tended to obscure the Obama administration’s record of support for Israel, and has been used by critics to dishonestly label the President as “anti-Israel.” But by any reasonable measure, Obama has been an extremely pro-Israel president. He has significantly expanded trade between Israel and the U.S., and played an extremely important behind-the-scenes role in bringing about Israel’s acceptance into the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), a long sought-after Israeli goal. In September, Obama went before the United Nations General Assembly and challenged the international community to support Arab-Israeli peace, and declared that “Israel’s existence must not be a subject for debate.” He also assured the world that “efforts to chip away at Israel’s legitimacy will only be met by the unshakable opposition of the United States.” In comments made to The Progress Report in August, Josh Block of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee remarked, “Clearly the Obama administration remains deeply committed to the U.S.-Israel alliance.”

It’s been rumored that Secretaty of State Clinton was pro-Israel prior to Obama’s becoming president. That would help explain pro-Israel of the staunchly pro-Muslim presidency, which is the resounding sentiment of many Israelis and others. Being representative of American interests such as Middle East peace and trade, Obama also would of necessity seek to get Israeli officials what they want in exchange for serious negotiations with the Palestinians.