SAVE THE DATE
for the
Republican Jewish Coalition's
2012 Republican Presidential Candidate Forum
December 7, 2011
9:00 AM – 5:00 PM
Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center
Washington, DC
Obama 101
In the last three years, the president has taught us a great deal about America, the world, and himself.
Before Obama, many Americans still believed in massive deficit spending, whether as an article of fairness, a means to economic growth, or just a lazy fallback position to justify an out-of-control federal government. But after the failure of a nearly $800 billion “stimulus” program — intended to keep unemployment under 8 percent — no one believes any more that an already indebted government will foster economic growth by taking on another $4 trillion in debt. In other words, “stimulus” is mostly a dead concept. The president — much as he advised a barnstorming President Bush in 2005 to cease pushing Social Security reform on a reluctant population — should give it up and junk the new $500 billion program euphemistically designated as a “jobs bill.” The U.S. government is already borrowing every three days what all of America spent on Black Friday.
The presidency of Barack Obama is full of funny things that need not follow any sort of logic. Images and ideas just pop in and out, without worry of inconsistency, contradiction, or hypocrisy. It’s a fascinating mish-mash of strange heroes and bogeymen, this imaginarium of our president.
In the imaginarium there are no revolving doors, earmarks, or lobbyists. So Peter Orszag did not go from being OMB director to a Citigroup fat-cat. Once chief-of-staff Rahm Emanuel did not make $16 million for his well-known banking expertise. The more you damn the pernicious role of lobbyists and the polluting role of big money, the more you must hire and seek out both. Public financing of campaigns is wonderful for everyone else who lacks the integrity of Barack Obama who understandably must renounce such unfair impositions.
You are invited to the
NWC's 3rd Annual
Day on the Hill
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
at the National Republican Senatorial Committee
425 Second Street NE, Washington D.C., DC 20002
‘Day On The Hill’ Confirms Importance of Jews in 2012
And Advises Increasing Jewish Spheres of Influence
Written by RJC Member Jansuzanne Krasner
The recognition by the RNC of the RJC’s clout in the Jewish political arena has reached a new level of respect as demonstrated on September 21, 2011 at the ‘Day On The Hill’ event orchestrated by the National Women’s Committee (NWC) of the RJC and the RJC’s evening reception that followed.
The roster of Congressional speakers who came to these two gatherings are testaments to the success the organization recently had with its campaign efforts for Bob Turner in New York. The list of Republican Congressional speakers who came to express their thanks to the membership tells the story: Mitch McConnell, Eric Cantor, Renee Ellmers, Jean Schmidt, Tom Price, Lynn Jenkins and John Thune. The evening’s event included Congressmen Steve Chabot, Denny Rehberg, Joe Walsh and Bob Turner. Besides expressing their thanks for RJC’s effective campaign strategies, each Congressperson displayed a new found buoyancy that could be felt and energized everyone in the room. There was hope in the air that together we can make President Obama a one-term president. And it is inspiring to know that we as individuals can make that happen.
Obama’s Refusal To Stop Foreign Aid To Terrorists
By Elizabeth (Liz) Berney, Esq.
As our unprecedented $14.5 trillion dollar federal deficit continues to spiral upwards, at least one spending cut should be a “no brainer”: You would think that everyone would finally agree to stop sending our tax dollars (and the money that we borrow from China) to foreign regimes who want to destroy America, Israel, India and our other allies.
Yet, the Obama administration is still sending billions to regimes that incite terrorism, embrace vicious terrorist groups inside their governments, and consider America to be their enemy.
Moreover, the Obama administration opposed two recent Congressional attempts to stop the administration's misdirected foreign aid practices. First, the administration opposed bi-partisan Congressional resolutions to suspend aid to the Palestinian Authority in the wake of the PA's unity agreement with Hamas. Second, the Obama administration opposed a bill introduced by the Republican Chairwoman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee to condition funding to the PA and four foreign governments on these regimes disassociating themselves from terrorists and meeting related conditions.
WASHINGTON — From her spot on a podium at a recent news conference on Capitol Hill, Representative Renee Ellmers, Republican of North Carolina, looked slightly nervous.
Mrs. Ellmers, 47, a nurse who was elected to Congress in 2010 with zero political experience, had been given the task of helping to sell the bill championed by Speaker John A. Boehner to raise the debt ceiling, a job usually left to the leaders of her party. She took a deep breath and plunged into an explanation of how the task of lawmaking compared to saving a patient near death.
“America is in a code,” she said, urging people to rally behind Mr. Boehner. “It’s crisis time, and it ain’t pretty.”
In a hospital, she said, “there were people in the room that you may not have even liked, but you were all working together to save the patient.”
“And in the end you were high-fiving, hugging, crying and laughing,” she said.
Mrs. Ellmers’s willingness to promote Mr. Boehner’s agenda places her in direct contrast to some of her freshman colleagues, who prefer to repair to Fox News to verbally poke the Republican leadership in the eye.
Her loyalty, relentless cheer and folksy locution — a news conference complement to the laconic, cigarette-tinged pronouncements of Mr. Boehner — have combined to make her one of the Republican leadership’s greatest freshman allies, and a rising star in the conference she once derided from her perch at Tea Party rallies back home.
There is Mrs. Ellmers giving the Republicans’ weekly radio address. There she is on CNN or “Fox and Friends,” explaining why Mr. Boehner’s plan to deal with the debt ceiling — one that many of her classmates protested — was the right path. There she is writing op-ed articles and pushing the message of the leaders, rather than of the elected president of the freshman class.
Her willingness to join the leadership, rather than beat up on it, is something that Tea Party groups in her state have begun to notice. Mrs. Ellmers understands their chagrin because she has been there.
“There is just a lot of mistrust Americans have for ‘those people in Washington,’ ” she said, adding with a laugh, “and now I am one of those people in Washington.”
August 7, 2011 | Townhall.com
The recent debt debate was not politics at its worst or most dysfunctional.
It worked exactly as American politics was designed to work.
“Our system is about posturing, fighting, dealing and eventually compromising,” said Dr. Lara Brown, a Villanova University political scientist. “Overall, House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell did what Henry Clay did –they structured a compromise, which gave Democrats time and Republicans principle.”
Clay was at the center of the Nullification Crisis of 1833, rooted in two bills placing high tariffs on imports; it protected Northern manufacturers but left the South unable to sell its raw materials.
South Carolina rebelled and passed legislation "nullifying" the federal legislation, meaning it would not enforce the tariffs.
If you think today’s political antics are over-the-top, they have nothing on John C. Calhoun. He resigned as President Andrew Jackson's vice president and got elected by the state legislature to a vacant U.S. Senate seat, in order to fight the tariffs.
If you are a person with an interest in our country and the direction it seems to be going under the Obama administration, you may already be asking the following question: "Why is President Obama and his administration not listening to the majority of American opinion? Might the answer be that they really do not give a damn because they are attempting to take the US on a new social and political path away from capitalism and constitutional democracy. But, their real agenda is bubbling to the surface for you and others to clearly and undeniably see. It is the beginning of a socialist/Marxist evolution...and a new global point of view.
This observation has been clearly presented in a commentary recently written by Wayne Allyn Root, the 2008 Libertarian Party Vice Presidential nominee who serves on the Libertarian National Committee. Root attended Columbia University and followed the same career path during the same years as Obama. In early June 2010, Wayne wrote: “Add up the clues. Taken individually they’re alarming. Taken as a whole, it is a brilliant, Machiavellian game plan to turn the US into a socialist/Marxist state with a permanent majority that desperately needs government for survival…and can be counted on to always vote for bigger government. Why Not? They have no responsibility to pay for it.”
With this in mind, the answer to the above question is clear. Here is a summary for your review. The American people should know about this and judge for themselves. Obama is following the plan of Cloward & Piven, (A social, economic and political strategy for forcing political change through orchestrated crisis and social breakdown.)
The American Thinker | July 17, 2011
Consider this question: "If the Israelis gave the Palestinians everything, would Jews be able to live in Palestine in peace?" Everything means giving all defense technology; all territories including Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, Haifa, the Settlements, the Western Wall and other religious sites; water, all the oil, gas, and other natural resources of the land; and the right of return. Those who believe that the answer is "no" will understand that this presents the most compelling reason to defend Israel's right to be acknowledged as the "National Home of the Jewish People."
During PM Netanyahu's last visit to the US, his most impassioned words to President Obama and Congress was a plea for the Palestinians to recognize and accept the existence of Israel as a "Jewish state." It is not the indefensible '67 lines that is the basis of the stymied Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. The Hamas-Fatah unity agreement, forged to legitimize the Palestinian call for statehood in the UN, has exposed the truth about the negotiation failures. It is unwillingness of the Palestinians, not to mention the general Arab population, to accept any Jewish state or an agreement that does not include the 'right of return.'
In a recent commentary, TIME Magazine's senior editor Tony Karon questions: "Is Israel the National Home of the Jewish People." The debate over this question goes to the heart of a growing division in the Jewish-American community.
Karon offers the argument that it is only persecution that has driven Jews to find protection in Israel, not their desire to return to a Jewish homeland. Only 5.6 million of the world's population of 13.5 million Jews lives in Israel. He claims that in present day Western societies,
"the prime problem facing efforts to persuade the bulk of Jews to move to Israel may be the decline of anti-Semitism in the Western world. It seems increasingly far-fetched to suggest to third-generation Jewish Americans or Canadians, Britons or Frenchmen that theirs is a temporary, twilight existence in the countries of their birth and citizenship, a way station en route 'home' to Israel."
Karon uses this reasoning to justify why Israel should not be called the "National homeland of the Jewish People." By applying the same logic toward other nationalities, one would then believe that countries like Ireland and Lebanon, with more of their people living out of their respective countries, should no longer exist. And, Karon may not realize that anti-Semitism still flourishes even in countries where statistically there are no Jews, like Poland.
The Latest News from Secure America Now
New Poll of Jewish American Voters Shows Great Concern Over the Future Of Israel and Administration Relations With Israel
New SAN Poll Shows Great Concern Over the Future Of Israel
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 12, 2011
To download more information on the poll, Visit the Following:
http://www.secureamericanow.
While American Jewish voters, like the rest of the country, believe that economics is the most important issue facing the nation, they also believe that for the American Jewish community the single most important issue for the Jewish community is Israel.
I spent a portion of my Fourth of July holiday in a local shopping mall. It was not my first choice for a day meant for barbeques and fireworks, but as a working mother, national holidays typically serve as errand days for me. Apparently, however, some of our country's future heroes and leaders did in fact choose to spend their Independence Day shopping at the mall -- members of the Corps of Cadets of the United States Military Academy at West Point.
By my guestimation, there were several hundred young men and women walking around the mall neatly dressed in their khaki pants and collared shirts, and I was proud to be shopping in such good company. But I also felt a lump in my throat every time I walked by an individual wearing a West Point logo. I could not help but wonder what the future would hold, if that young person would survive his or her service to the country.
I had a similar feeling a couple of weeks ago when I was in Israel. In that country, joining the military is not an option; it is an obligation and one that almost every Israeli proudly fulfills in the name of survival. In America, our citizens take for granted that their freedoms and way of life will be defended by the young people who choose to enlist in the military; the vast majority of citizens do not opt for duty in reliance upon others. Israelis do not take survival and freedom for granted -- they have either already served or one day will serve, they have friends and family who are currently serving, and they have a lump in their throat and a pit in their stomach every day knowing that their loved ones may not survive the next war, rocket attack, or soldier's kidnapping. And Israelis most certainly do not rely on others to help them survive.
Early in his presidency, in the midst of very un-presidential and personal attacks on Israel and its leadership, President Obama told American Jewish leaders that Israel must "engage in serious self-reflection." Sadly, Obama was quite serious when he made that ridiculously ignorant comment. And as another Independence Day passes just weeks after Obama dissed the Israeli Prime Minister for the umpteenth time and made self-aggrandizing speeches pitting Israel against the rest of the world drawing it further into a position of isolation, it would be nice to know what it would take for this American president to engage in serious self-reflection himself.
David Ainsman really began to get worried about President Barack Obama’s standing with his fellow Jewish Democrats when a recent dinner with his wife and two other couples — all Obama voters in 2008 — nearly turned into a screaming match.
Ainsman, a prominent Democratic lawyer and Pittsburgh Jewish community leader, was trying to explain that Obama had just been offering Israel a bit of “tough love” in his May 19 speech on the Arab Spring. His friends disagreed — to say the least.
One said he had the sense that Obama “took the opportunity to throw Israel under the bus.” Another, who swore he wasn’t getting his information from the mutually despised Fox News, admitted he’d lost faith in the president.
If several dozen interviews with POLITICO are any indication, a similar conversation is taking place in Jewish communities across the country. Obama’s speech last month seems to have crystallized the doubts many pro-Israel Democrats had about Obama in 2008 in a way that could, on the margins, cost the president votes and money in 2012 and will not be easy to repair. (See also: President Obama's Middle East speech: Details complicate 'simple' message)
“It’s less something specific than that these incidents keep on coming,” said Ainsman.
The immediate controversy sparked by the speech was Obama’s statement that Israel should embrace the country’s 1967 borders, with “land swaps,” as a basis for peace talks. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu seized on the first half of that phrase and the threat of a return to what Israelis sometimes refer to as “Auschwitz borders.” (Related: Obama defends border policy)
Obama’s Jewish allies stressed the second half: that land swaps would — as American negotiators have long contemplated — give Israel security in its narrow middle, and the deal would give the country international legitimacy and normalcy.
