Tag Archives: President Obama

President Obama – No, He Can’t!

Posted on June 20, 2011 by | Leave a comment

By Yoram Ettinger
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4082463,00.html, June 15, 2011

President Obama pressures Israel to adopt his initiative, which is based on the 1949 cease fire lines, including the repartitioning of Jerusalem and land swaps. He implies that Israeli rejection of his initiative would undermine US-Israel relations, while advancing Palestinian maneuvers at the UN.

However, Obama lacks the domestic backing to effectively pressure Israel, which has recently gained in bi-partisan support on Capitol Hill and among constituents, while Obama lost the “Bin Laden Bounce” and is struggling with a less-than-50% approval rating.

Obama’s power constraints are derivatives of the Federalist system, which is based on limited government with a complete separation of powers and checks and balances between Congress and the White House, Congressional “Power of the Purse” and the centrality of the constituent in a political system of bi-annual elections. Therefore, legislators are more loyal to – and fearful of – their constituents than to their party or to the president.  Moreover, the loyalty to constituents constitutes a prerequisite for re-election.

Obama’s constraints in pressuring the Jewish State emanate from the unique attitude of Americans – as early as the 1620 landing of the Mayflower, as well as the Founding Fathers – to the idea of reconstructing the Jewish Commonwealth in the Land of Israel.  The solid and sustained support enjoyed by Israel in the USA derives its vitality from the American people and from their representatives on Capitol Hill and in the legislatures of the 50 states more than from the president.  While the president plays a major role in shaping US-Israel relations, constituents and legislators laid the foundations for this relationship and they continuously codetermine its direction, tone and substance.  They can also initiate, suspend, terminate and amend policies, direct presidents and overhaul presidential policies.

The results of the November 2010 Congressional elections revealed that Obama’s policies had lost the support of most constituents.

According to a May 26, 2011 poll by CNN – which is usually critical of Israel – most Americans do not share Obama’s attitude towards Israel.  82% consider Israel an ally and a friend, compared with 72% in 2001.  67% support Israel, while only 16% support the Palestinians, compared with 60%:17% in 2009.  In fact, the Palestinians (16%) are as unpopular as are Iran (15%) and North Korea (17%).

These CNN findings exceed the February, 2011 Gallup poll (68% considered Israel an ally), the April 2011 Rasmussen Report (most Americans opposed foreign aid to Arab countries but supported foreign aid to Israel) and the April 2010 Quinnipiac Polling Institute (66% expected Obama to improve treatment of Israel).

But, the “Poll of Polls” is conducted daily in Congress – a coequal branch of government – where hard-core support of the Jewish State has been bi-partisan, robust and steady.  Majority Leader Senator Harry Reid and Minority Whip Congressman Steny Hoyer publicly criticized (fellow-Democrat) President Obama’s focus on the 1967 ceasefire lines. Other key Democrats – whose cooperation is critical to Obama’s reelection campaign – have clarified that they expect him to veto any anti-Israel UN resolution.  Just like their constituents – most Democrats value Israel as a unique ally, whose alliance with the US is based on shared values, mutual threats and joint interests.

Will Prime Minister Netanyahu leverage this unique American support, defying pressure and solidifying Israel’s posture of deterrence in the face of an unpredictably violent Middle East, where concessions breed radicalism, terrorism and war?  Or, will he succumb to the psychological warfare launched by the White House?

<em>Yoram Ettinger is former Israeli Ambassador to the United State and author of the Ettinger Report.</em>

Leave a comment

Posted in politics

Tagged , , ,

President Obama and DOMA: Why Obama’s Position is Unconstitutional

Posted on March 16, 2011 by | Leave a comment

The Justice Department announced last month that it would no longer defend the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) because the president and Attorney General Eric Holder now believe the law is unconstitutional.
“After careful consideration, including review of a recommendation from me, the President of the United States has made the determination that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act…as applied to same-sex couples who are legally married under state law, violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment,” Holder wrote in a letter to House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) on February 23. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Obama believes DOMA is “unnecessary and unfair.”

But as CNSNews.com reported, critics of Obama’s decision said the president of the United States, who is sworn to faithfully execute the law, doesn’t get to pick and choose which laws to defend.

Three things should be noted about the President’s justification for considering DOMA unconstitutional.

First, the Fifth Amendment has no “equal under the law” clause, but the Fourteenth Amendment does.

Second, he claims implies state laws made after the passage of DOMA effectual negate it as law rather than prior law (DOMA) negating laws of states. On the face of it, the President’s action seems legitimate because federal law is supposed to conform to the limits of the Constitution, which leaves states their 10th Amendment right to determine on matters not addressed by the Supreme Law. Most marriage issues do apply here. But, again, the justification is based on the Fifth Amendment or maybe the Fourteenth.

Third, however, is the fact that marriage comes under the rubric of human sexual behavior. Men and women enter into marriage covenants long before the Constitution existed. It is a moral act of agreement in which men with women contract to much more than sexual activity, but the basis of the covenant relationship is nevertheless sexual.

As the basis of the Constitutional compact is, so is the basis of marriage. Natural law may be defined as what is self-evidently true to human nature on the basis of reason and revealed law. Critics may disagree with the last two words, but the founders who authored and accepted by vote America’s legal definition of nationhood would agree. Be that as it may, it extremely difficult to reason from human nature as it exists to acceptance of homosexual behavior or marriage of homosexuals as lawful behavior. Some medical scientists have pointed the biological and medical difficulties with it. Simply put, sex between males and females is obvious natural behavior with the benefit of keeping the human race from extinction–even atheistic evolutionists would have to agree. Homosexual behavior is at best an aberration of natural human behavior.

“Equality under the law clause of the 14th Amendment” does not provide protection for aberrant behaviors. It is supposed to guarantee the same protections against discrimination based on natural characteristics like skin color, sex, nationality, and the like. Those characteristics are inherent to human nature. It is supposed to guarantee that common laws are equally applied to all citizens, and in breaking those laws, the same equality is to be applied. That is except for the few exempted from those laws like foreign ambassadors, heads of state, Presidents, and some times the rich.

Let’s not forget, the gay community possess an average income significantly above average John and Jane American.

Even with all of their considerable buying power, the Democratic Party President cannot make the unnatural natural and unconstitutional constitutional.

Leave a comment

Posted in politics

Tagged , , , , ,

DOMA Decision: Obama’s Constitutional Quandary

Posted on March 16, 2011 by | Leave a comment

By Cameron Smith

On February 23, President Obama, in consultation with Attorney General Eric Holder, determined that the Justice Department would no longer defend Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which defines marriage as only between a man and a woman.

The DOMA decision has unleashed a seemingly endless cavalcade of commentary regarding the constitutionality of DOMA and the merits of the traditional definition of marriage. Once again, the culture wars seem to be back in full swing as part of American politics.

Unfortunately, the most concerning aspect of the President’s decision has been conspicuously absent from the public debate. Rather than providing clarity on the executive branch’s perspective on the constitutionality of DOMA, the President has muddied the waters and acted in a manner offensive to any reasonable interpretation of the Constitution.

The President derives executive authority from Article II of the U.S. Constitution and is required to “take care that the laws [of the United States] be faithfully executed.” Article I clearly outlines that “[a]ll legislative [p]owers…shall be vested in [the] Congress of the United States….” Powers of the judicial branch are found in Article III and further clarified by Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S.137 (1803) which established the power of the Court to review the constitutionality of laws. These clearly defined functions provide a unique separation of powers that has served our country well for over 200 hundred years.

On November 2, 1994, Assistant Attorney General Walter Dellinger issued a memorandum entitled “Presidential Authority to Decline to Execute Unconstitutional Statutes” (Dellinger Memorandum). Some have suggested the Dellinger Memorandum should be instructive when considering the President’s recent actions regarding DOMA.

The Dellinger Memorandum clearly and effectively articulates that the President has ample authority to decline enforcement of legislation that encroaches on the constitutional charge of the executive branch. A number of cases including Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926), INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983), and United States v. Lovett, 328 U.S. 303 (1946) convincingly reinforce that assertion.

Unfortunately, the Dellinger Memorandum does not effectively speak to the President’s decision on DOMA. At no point has the President or the Attorney General argued that DOMA encroaches on the President’s Article II powers. Rather, the President has made a political decision that DOMA is unconstitutional according to his interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment which has been interpreted to apply to the federal government.

To make matters more confusing, President Obama has informed the Attorney General that the executive branch will continue to enforce the law even though it will not defend it in court. Essentially, this means that DOMA will be considered law but anyone challenging the constitutionality of DOMA in court will not find the U.S. Department of Justice opposing them.

This decision begs the question why the President who has sworn to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution” would continue to enforce that which he believes to be unconstitutional.

By declining to defend DOMA while continuing to “enforce” it, the President is trying to have his cake and eat it, too. The President is attempting to heavily prejudice the judicial branch’s constitutional disposition of DOMA without declaring the law unconstitutional from the White House.

If the President has the power to unilaterally declare a statute unconstitutional, then the office wields even more power than previously recognized, subject to the volatility of the election cycle. That power would radically shift the modern understanding of constitutional interpretation which has generally deferred to the Supreme Court as the arbiter of constitutionality in most cases. The President also recognizes that such a shift would mean many other potentially unconstitutional laws such as the individual mandate in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act could be dispatched by subsequent administrations.

In any event, the President’s decision on DOMA rests on shaky constitutional ground regardless of the ultimate constitutionality of DOMA itself. If President Obama finds DOMA unconstitutional, then he is failing to execute his constitutional Oath of Office to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” On the other hand, if he continues to enforce the law, thereby supporting its constitutionality, he must also defend it to ensure that the law is faithfully executed.

While the President may have shrewdly made the most politically expedient decision, the responsibility to uphold the Constitution supercedes politics. President Obama should be called to account by Democrats and Republicans alike, regardless of their views on DOMA.

———————————————-

Cameron Smith is General Counsel and Legislative Liaison for the Alabama Policy Institute, a non-partisan, non-profit research and education organization dedicated to the preservation of free markets, limited government and strong families, which are indispensable to a prosperous society.

Leave a comment

Posted in news, politics

Tagged , , , , ,

Islamic Society of North America Comments On President Obama’s State of the Union & Commentary

Posted on February 1, 2011 by | Leave a comment

Last Tuesday, President Barack Obama delivered his first 2011 State of the Union Address. Where democrats and republicans crossed the “party line” in Congress to sit with one another, the President also focused on inclusion, and stated his “conviction that American Muslims are a part of the American family.”

ISNA welcomes his remarks and shares some of them with you below:

“We are part of the American family. We believe that in a country where every race and faith and point of view can be found, we are still bound together as one people; that we share common hopes and a common creed; that the dreams of a little girl in Tucson are not so different than those of our own children, and that they all deserve the chance to be fulfilled. That, too, is what sets us apart as a nation…

And so we must defeat determined enemies wherever they are, and build coalitions that cut across lines of region and race and religion. America’s moral example must always shine for all who yearn for freedom, justice, and dignity.

And as extremists try to inspire acts of violence within our borders, we are responding with the strength of our communities, with respect for the rule of law, and with the conviction that American Muslims are a part of our American family.”

“We sincerely hope that President Obama’s message of a united American family resonates with the general public and that, as Congress enters the upcoming hearings on religious extremism, they do not take them as an opportunity to unfairly punish the entirety of a religion for the actions of a few misguided and wrongful individuals. We hope Congress will remember our President’s message, from last night, that American Muslims are united with all Americans in the war on terror, and the mis-guided actions of a few by no means represent the whole,” said ISNA Secretary General Safaa Zarzour.

Notes:

First Safaa Zarzour is an Illinois lawyer and educator who was appointed to the position of Secretary General in 2010. Second, ISNA and Zarzour have ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, and so-called terrorism, according to investigative research of The Hudson Institute and Time Magazine and reported by Islamic Jihad Watch. Third, although Zarzour is an effective inter-faith communicator and educator, his work for ISNA and CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations) not only benefits Hamas and the global Muslim Brotherhood but also Muslim charity work and terrorism conducted by the same origanzations. That is the irony of so-called radical Islamic terrrorists; they function as community organizers and charities among Muslim communities (i.e., Gaza, West Bank, Lebanon, etc.) and function as terrorist outside the community (i.e., Israel, Africa, London, Spain, New York City, etc.). Fourth, Zarzour appears to be an accomplished American, outstanding Muslim, and passoniate educator, and lawyer, but natural skepticism raises the question whether or not his inter-faith relations building is really an effort to convert all America’s infidels into faithful Muslims. That alone would be a good thing–the American way–if it were not for Islam’s ultimate Quranic justification of using the sword to make disciples and eliminate unbelievers. Fifth, the problem is that it can happen in America as it has elsewhere throughout history.

Do you remember the recent near genocide of Southern Christians in Sudan? It was carried out by the Muslim leaders of Sudan.

How about the Muslim League of Arab Nations attempt to exterminated the new nation of Israel in 1948?

Or, maybe, you remember the Jerusalem Muslim Mufti’s contributions leading to the Holocaust? The Mufti campaigned against Hitler’s legal and illegal attempts to force migrate German Jews to their ancient homeland.

Perhaps, you remember the history about the genocide of Armenians in 1915 by the Islamic Ottoman Imperialists? Some of their methods employed by the Nazis mimicked the Ottmans.

Most American Muslims and ISNA leaders may only want to live free under American rule-of-law. Zarzour may be seeking only to understand the faith of others while helping them understand Islam. But, it does not mean others will not come after who will seek to subjugate all infidels by force. Global reign is the goal of Islam.

This is what Americans must remember.

Leave a comment

Posted in news

Tagged , , , , , ,

Small Business Group’s Response to President Obama’s State of the Union

Posted on January 31, 2011 by | Leave a comment

In response to President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address, the nation’s leading organization dedicated to promoting entrepreneurship and protecting small business issued the following response:

“Entrepreneurs are heartened to hear that President Obama wants to make the U.S. the best place on earth to do business. Indeed, across the globe, nations are cutting taxes, simplifying their tax systems and reducing regulations to make it easier to start up and grow a business. Developed and emerging countries alike have quickly adapted to the competitive environment and are reaping rewards in their aggressive efforts to attract capital and business investment. President Obama has awoken to this realization, and mere rhetoric alone will not change the competitive dynamic. Entrepreneurs and investors must now see dramatic changes on the policy front. This means, immediately locking in a pro-growth tax system, restraining the regulatory tide that is sweeping over every sector of our economy and reducing government spending,” said Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council (SBE Council) President & CEO Karen Kerrigan.

SBE Council chief economist Raymond J. Keating added: “While the President’s pro-business rhetoric is encouraging, other specifics in his speech were disappointing. First, his explicit call for a tax increase on upper-income earners showed that he still fails to grasp that such a tax hike on entrepreneurs and investors would be bad for the economy. Second, his call, in effect, for higher taxes on oil companies in order to subsidize other energy sources reveals a desire for politics to overrule markets, with the result being higher costs in the end. And third, he took one step forward on trade, by urging Congress to approve the South Korea trade deal, but two steps back by failing to push ahead now with the Panama and Colombia accords.”

Kerrigan concluded: “We look forward to working with President Obama and Congress in the critical areas of reducing regulation and simplifying the tax system. Leadership and action are desperately needed on these issues if the U.S. is to become more competitive in the global economy. Furthermore, small business owners have substantive ideas for improving the health care overhaul bill that was enacted into law. We only hope the Administration will listen to our solutions this time around.”

SBE Council is a nonpartisan, nonprofit advocacy and research organization dedicated to protecting small business and promoting entrepreneurship.

Leave a comment

Posted in business, economy, news, politics, taxes

Tagged , , ,

US State Department Steps Up Promotion of Homosexual Agenda

Posted on January 27, 2011 by | Leave a comment

By Lauren Funk

The Obama administration has made it repeatedly clear that one of their priorities is the promotion of the homosexual agenda both in the US and around the world. The latest salvo in this campaign is the just-announced policy that the applications for Consular Reports of Birth Abroad and passports would use the designations of “Parent 1” and “Parent 2,” instead of “Mother” and “Father.”

The State Department said, “The improvements are being made to provide a gender neutral description of a child’s parents and in recognition of different types of families.” Homosexual activists celebrated the change. Such groups have been pushing for the gender neutralization of passport applications and other official document for years, launching online petitions and lobbying government officials.

Jennifer Chrisler, executive director of the Family Equality Council, played a key role in achieving the gender neutralization of the passport application. She applauded the change last week, while assuring her supporters online that the FEC would continue to lobby for similar modifications in other identification and medical forms. The gender-neutralization of such documents is one of the goals of the Blueprint for Positive Change, a comprehensive homosexual -rights agenda presented to the Obama Administration in 2008.

In response to rising criticism from conservatives and pro-family groups, last weekend Secretary Clinton modified the previously announced change so that the application would include “mother or parent 1” and “father or parent 2.” Clinton’s press secretary reported that she was unaware of the complete removal of mother and father from the application, and decided to include both terms so that the application would be as “inclusive and informative” as possible.

Clinton has made the advancement of homosexual rights a personal priority, prompting Change.org to name her the most “pro-LGTB” Secretary of State ever. In 2009, Clinton announced that the partners of homosexual diplomats would be eligible for spousal benefits, a move that rest of the US government promptly replicated. Additionally, the State Department recently eased the regulations regarding change of gender procedures on passport applications, making it easier to verify a sex change. Both of these changes were goals of the Blueprint of Action for Positive Change.

The US’s homosexual-rights agenda has also made its way into the halls of the United Nations. Last summer, Clinton instructed the US diplomatic corps to prioritize reporting homosexual rights violations and related issues in their correspondences. The US also muscled through a reversal in a UN committee’s rejection of a homosexual group’s application for official UN recognition. What’s more, US-UN Ambassador Susan Rice recently pushed the UN to include the language of sexual orientation in a General Assembly resolution, a resolution from which the US abstained when it came time to vote. Days earlier, Ambassador Rice pledged to a Human Rights Day event that the US would continue to advocate for the homosexual agenda in international law and policy.

This article was originally published in Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute publication FridayFax, January 13, 2011.

Leave a comment

Posted in family, health, news, politics

Tagged , ,

Abortion, a Constitutional Right? (38 Years of Roe v Wade)

Posted on January 22, 2011 by | Leave a comment

by Daniel Downs

Today, January 22, 2011, America remembers the Supreme Court decision that inaugurated abortion as legally protected privacy right. Pro-abortion supporters celebrate this day while devotees of pro-life oppose its existence.

A majority of Americans believe abortion is a constitutional right. In a Quinnipiac poll, 60% of Americans agreed Roe v Wade established a women’s right to abortion. I noticed most polls present abortion right as an established Constitutional right and proceed asking whether respondents want an amendment to ban it. Interestingly, 70% of Americans believe Supreme Court justices base their decisions on politics and not law according to the above poll. (Quinnipiac National Poll, April 21, 2010)

In a brief speech today, President Obama commemorated the Roe v Wade decision as establishing a women’s constitutional right to abortion. He said, “I am committed to protecting this constitutional right. I also remain committed to policies, initiatives, and programs that help prevent unintended pregnancies, support pregnant women and mothers, encourage healthy relationships, and promote adoption.” (USA Today)

Yes, most Americans believe in abortion as a constitutional right, but where is found in the U.S. Constitution? It is missing in the Supreme Law of the Land.

How then did the majority of Supreme Court justices discover it? They found a woman’s right to abortion in several places. First, natural law states that individuals have an absolute right over their own bodies. Second, they saw this natural law right positively in the 4the Amendment clauses forbidding government intrusion into private matters. Third, and last, they founded a technicality in the disagreement among academics and so-called professionals about when life begins. This technicality was their justification to permit abortions until “society” establishes such a consensus agreement, which they knew was likely to be never. They knew for such a consensus definition to occur secularists and traditionalist or moralists and liberal and conservatives, humanists and religionists would all have to come to an agreement that life begins at conception.

The problems with the Roe v Wade decision are many. Several worth stating are as follows: (1) Roe v Wade violates the law that prohibits individuals from harming their own bodies or others. Our laws allow officials arrest and detain people who seek to destroy their own body parts. (2) Human life is the result of the behavior of two people, not one. The court only recognizes the right of the women. In practice, the man has no right to his body part contributed to the newly conceived person. (3) At every stage, a baby develops as a separate entity apart from the women whose body is made to nourish and nurture the new person. A baby at the blastocyte, fetus, or any other stage is still a developing human being. (4) Lastly, the Constitution is supposed to protect the right to life. That two-letter word has more meaning than most people realize. If the right was a “right of life,” however human life may be defined, all Americans have a right to right possess it. However, the right is to life, which indicates a process of obtaining what human life is. And, human life is a process of becoming as well as a state of entropy. Human life is an inheritance of the past and a development toward a future, and a present state of being.

Because human life is an inherited interrelational, historical, and futuristic process, Roe v Wade should be regarded as a political act of violence against all human life. No way can it be constitutional.

Leave a comment

Posted in history, news, politics

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

President Obama Announces “New” Regulatory Strategy, SBE Council’s Kerrigan Responds

Posted on January 20, 2011 by | 1 comment

President Obama released a new regulatory strategy today, which hopefully will lead to less regulation on small business owners and more accountability in the regulatory agencies said a national small business advocate. According to Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council (SBE Council) President & CEO Karen Kerrigan, an effective strategy would immediately take steps to reform or scale back both existing and proposed regulations.

“The new and improved regulatory approach outlined by President Obama in his Executive Order and Presidential Memorandums will certainly recognize the staggering cost burdens inherent in the new health care law, for example, and other initiatives underway at EPA and the Department of Labor,” said Kerrigan. “That being the case, we await a new attitude across the entire federal government in listening to small business concerns and offering alternatives or exemptions,” she added.

SBE Council’s Kerrigan sees an opportunity for the White House and Congress to work together on reducing regulation and advancing reforms to modernize and alter the regulatory process. For example, the House Committee on Government Oversight and Reform is embarking on an initiative to identify both existing and proposed regulations that are an impediment to job creation, small business growth and economic recovery. Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) also plans to study various reform ideas to accomplish what the President hopes to do through his Executive Order and twin Memorandums.

“If the President and his team are genuine in what they want to accomplish for small business, and we believe that to be the case, then he and Chairman Issa are on the same page,” said Kerrigan.

President Obama’s new regulatory strategy includes several things, including a commitment to enforce existing law with regard to the obligations that government department and agencies have to small business when new regulations and proposed; more transparency, access and reporting from Federal enforcement agencies as they relate to investigations and compliance; and, a “to do” list for regulatory agencies focusing on how they will go about streamlining the regulatory process, identifying outmoded or duplicative regulations, improving the effectiveness of regulations, and lessening burden, among other directives.

“The President expressed a commitment to small business owners in announcing his new regulatory strategy. He must execute on this promise,” said Kerrigan. “Entrepreneurs remain on edge about the costs of new laws and other regulations coming down the pike. They are expecting more costs and red tape from Washington. Given that set of expectations, they will not add jobs or aggressively invest in the growth of their businesses,” she concluded.

1 Comment

Posted in news, politics

Tagged , ,

Blame Obama for the Gaza flotilla disaster, Palestinian jihad for the Gaza blockade, and Israeli weakness for both

Posted on June 14, 2010 by | Leave a comment

Israel’s blockade of traffic to Hamas controlled Gaza was a necessary effort to prevent weapons from being smuggle into Gaza. Israel was not preventing food and other aid from reaching the people living in Gaza. Israel’s military was both regulating and overseeing land deliveries of legitimate supplies. Of course, it was likely that shipments were delayed because of the screening process.

Erroneous propaganda was being circulated that enflamed many Muslims throughout the Middle East. Clearly, the government of Turkey had no right to sponsor the violent group of so-called activists whose purpose was to create an international conflict.

According to the World Tribune, deaths of the flotilla terrorists can be laid at the feet of the leader of the American Empire. Israel gave Pres. Obama advanced intel about the passengers of the flotilla. Pres. Obama demanded Israel use no conventional riot gear. Had the Israeli military boarded the ship with anti-riot gear, tear gas and guns with rubber bullets, no one would have likely died during the conflict.

Israeli soldiers boarded the flotilla were attacked and beaten. Those who had remained in their boat had no choice but to protect the lives of their comrades with deadly force.

To condemn Israel for protecting its citizens from suicide bombers, from missile attacks, and from those smuggling in the weapons to do so is no injustice to Palestinians in Gaza. It is an obligation of the Israeli government. Like walls, blockades are the least destructive means of protecting humans lives–lives on both sides.

Maybe, Muslims should try more peaceful means of resolving problems that violent demands and violent attacks.

One of the more ironic aspects of this tragic event is the apparent weakness of Israeli leaders. PM Netanyahu didn’t even consult his own security cabinet, according to the World Tribune. Remember, Pres. Obama has no military experience whatsoever. Instead, he followed the head of Empire to resolve Israel’s crisis. It is this apparent weakness that enabled Pres. Obama to dictate Israeli policy and emboldens Muslims with visions of one world Islam.

Leave a comment

Posted in news, politics

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

PA Pres. Abba’s Acknowledgment Of Jews Historic Right to Israel Meaningless Until Written Into Law: Why Doesn’t Pres. Obama Demand It?

Posted on June 11, 2010 by | Leave a comment

The Arab League of Nations demands Israel stop building in so-called occupied territories, which means East Jerusalem and the West Bank. Palestinian Authority leader Abbas agrees and so does President Obama. In a recent article published by the Maan News Agency, Pres. Obama reportedly promised Abbas a prolonged settlement freeze in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. It was chief PLO negotiator Saeb Erekat who confirmed to Arab League ministers that Obama made his promise off the record in order to avoid conflict with right-wing factions in Israel. Abbas is said to have conceded Jews historic right to the land of Israel, according to IECJ News. Abbas acknowledgment of the Jews right to Israel came during his speech before American Jewish leaders at an event organized by the Center for Middle East Peace.

Although PA President Abbas also acknowledged West Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, Abba’s claims were not official declarations. Unless such claims are incorporated into the written record of international treaty and national law, Abba’s claims are mere political propaganda aimed at winning the support of American Jews in order to use them to pressure Israeli leaders to concede to Arab demands. Unlike American leaders like Pres. Obama, Israelis remember PA legal documents have never been expunged of claims against the right of Zion (Israel) to exist in the mostly Arab Middle East.

The constitutional and related legal instruments are the official policy of the political entities. Until Abbas’s claims become legal polity recognized by the League of Arab Nations, peace between Israel and the PLO is mere smoke in the wind. For American leader like President Obama to give credence to anything less is to make America a real serious threat to the citizens of Israel. That has been the object lesson of the so-called Oslo agreement.

Sources: Maan News Agency, May 2, 2010 and International Christian Embassy Jerusalem News, June 10, 2010 (email)

Leave a comment

Posted in news, politics

Tagged , , , , , ,