Obama and the Woods Foundation

The Feb 27,2008 story in the Jewish Press by Aaron Klein,accuses Obama of serving as a paid Director of a non-profit organization ( the Woods Foundation) that granted funding to a controversial Arab group that mourns the establishment of the State of Israel.
The co-founder of the group is Rashid Khalidi of Columbia Univ.,who is described in the article as a harsh critic of Israel.
Obama,says the article, was a Director from 1999 to 2002 and was compensated $6000 per year.
I suggest you read the entire Article, JewishPress.Com ,or from a print edition.
I am sure more info will follow.Perhaps Nader was correct.

Israel at war/ H. Obama

Israel is at war! PERIOD !, However they are fighting it with both hands tied behind their backs.
It reminds me of a parent who keeps warning a wayward child, but never quite brings himself to punish the child.If you look back in the JPost or Haaretz,almost no week passes without 3 to 7 warnings from the PM, Defense Minister,Security Cabinet etc, that Israel will not tolerate the Kassams and will destroy the ability of Hamas to continue their tirade.
Sadly it is mostly talk,and the enemy knows it.Yes a few IDF air sorties,but no change on the ground.
FORGET RICE,FORGET BUSH- FORGET THE UN
- EVERY COUNTRY IS DUTY BOUND TO PROTECT THEIR CITIZENS!
How many more Jews must die?
=====================================================================================

For the life of me,I do not understand the hyper-political correctness re: Obama.
When JFK ran,the question of his Catholicism was openly discussed.
When Joe Lieberman ran,I personally answered about 40 reporters calls re: his religion and the role of Orthodox Judiasm in his life.
While Romney was a viable candidate,he was forced to make a JFK-like speech on his Mormon faith.
Mike Huckabee,a preacher had a commercial with a cross in the background ,and we all discussed -Is this good for America? Did he step over the Church/State line?
However,when Obama has his middle name mentioned in print or via a public speaker, it is prima fascia evidence of anti-Muslim biogotry, that attempts to label the candidate as perhaps a Muslim.

A candidates upbringing,schooling employment history,health,intake of drugs and alcohol,as well as family life may play a role in how each of us evaluates a candidate ,in addition to their votes and public posture.This is especially true when we are considering the Presidency.

Suppose his first name was HUSSEIN,would we be obligated to call him
H. Obama, because his first name might be considered inflammatory.
Incidentally,in all his adult life, he never petitioned a court to delete or change his middle name( I assume he is proud of it).
He is getting a free ride from the Press in the Hillary-Barack battle.

Obama and the Jews

As one listens to the talking political talking heads on cable TV,the question popping up more frequently regards Obama and the Jews.The Dem. spokespeople correctly assert that he has plenty of Jewish support,in addition to the positive public statements of the leaders of the major Jewish organizations.
However, my analyses is that the uneasiness toward Obama is felt on a one on one level-we see it whenever our people gather socially or for prayer.This is especially true in the Orthodox and right-wing Conservative elements.
I do not believe that leaders of organizations will be able to influence "Amcha" -the man in the street, when they have suspicions of his roots, and his old buddies, and of course his left wing views on security.
Will this matter? I don't know-except thousands of Orthodox Jews in Brookly for example who would vote for Hillary might have hesitations.Perhaps its tens of thousands- it is too early to tell,but McCain with a solid pro-Israel record has a shot to make major inroads in our community.

FISA renewal / Nader's charges / Gaza

When your country calls,or you are under attack, we as citizens must respond.Americas telecommunication industries did just that after 9/11. It is no accident that we have not had another attack on our soil.The ability to intercept messages from throughout the world has been a major source of our ability to prevent the terrorists from creating havoc on our shores.
Now,the trial lawyers and the left have refused to renew FISA ,unless the right to sue these companies remains in place.
The Senate in a bipartisan move has passed a renewal bill with a retroactive immunity against such suits.The Democratic House leadership has refused,and the law is in limbo.
It is hard to believe that this is the leadership against terrorism that the Dems talk about.
Wouldn't it be nice if Hillary and Barack both urged their party leadership to stop the nonsense, and look out for America ahead of the trial lawyers.
=============================================================================
What I didn't know yesterday until I read the text,was that Raph Nader's accusation agains Obama, was that in his previous "life" Obama was pro-Palestinian, and now for political sake had switched sides.
====================================================================================

I urge every reader to examine Bret Stephens op-ed in todays WSJ.In his usual analytical style he examines the situation in Gaza,the potential choices open to Israel,and the reactions that Israel could expect from each approach.
It fits in perfectly with my thoughts from yesterdays blog.

More on Osama

Shame on Obama for distancing himself from the ideas of the Likud Party in yesterdays meeting with Jews. How would he like it if the leading candidate for Israeli PM,would announce that he prefers the policies of John McCain ?
This is but another clue that he is leading the left wing of the Dems,and if he is elected during a Netanyahu PMship,Israel will be in trouble.(They will be in trouble anyway with an Obama Presidency).He should respect the Israeli Democracy, and the special relationship between our two countries regardless of party in power in our respective countries.

A few more questions to ponder from yesterday.
If Obama wins, will he visit and pay tribute to the grave of Yasir Arafat?(when he visits)
If Obama wins,and he holds a Muslim summit,will Hamas,Hizbollah (Nasrallah) and Islamic Jihad be invited (with or without pre-conditions) ?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PM Olmert has promised the residents of Sderot they will be protected by 2010.
Firstly a lot of Jews can die by then.
He bases his "optimism" on the Iron Dome Defense system that will knock out incoming missiles.
The problem is,that this system is only effective for missiles that are 4 KM. from the target.
Sderot is only 2 KM from Beit Hanun from which many of the Kassams are fired.
What is needed, is for the IDF to go into Gaza and create a buffer of 4 KM ,that will serve as a barrier.If it requires that the area be leveled,then so be it.
Olmert should do this before Nov,in case Barak Hussein Obama becomes Pres.

By the way, one person who doesn't agree with me regarding Obama,is Ralph Nader who yesterday accused BHO of being too pro-Israel. We know where he is coming from..

Pollitical timidity

I thank my son for blogging while we were on our cruise.

Hillary had two opportunities to hit home runs against Obama during the recent debate.
On the question did she consider Obama ready to become CIC on day one,she should have answered NO- and explained.
On the issue of immediate negotiations with Raoul Castro,she should have said "Senator Obama ,you are naive and inexperienced.You were prepared to bomb an independent country -Pakistan without consent,prepared to sit down with Iranian leaders with no agenda , pre-conditions or preperation, and now Cuba."
On both issues she held back, for fear of getting the same reaction as her plagarism response.The result was less than favorable for her and her supposed leadership issue.

Thus, it will be up to not only McCain but the 527 organizations to clearly discuss Obama and foreign policy; Michelle Obama and her lack of pride in America: Obama and his feelings toward the Pledge of Allegiance .Obama and his conception of "Unity" which means a far left liberal socialistic Congress ; to document any legislative victories Obama can claim in the Senate ( 0 ), or how and when he tried to bring Republicans and Democrats together ( never).

When the nominations are sealed, the time for hero worship will be over, and it will be time to examine the records not of rhetoric, but of leadership and votes.It will be time for specifics regarding issues,such as Iranian nuclear power, N. Korea, Hamas and its attempt to destroy Israel -on a daily basis, Kosovo, Putin and missiles,OPEC and its stranglehold on energy, and other such issues.
Women swooning and fainting are great for a rock concert, not for a Presidential campaign.
And, the attacks by liberal Jewish so-called leaders and religious organizations.on those who dare criticize Obama for being less pro-Israel than Hillary,McCain or Huckabee are way off base.
No one should be immune from careful inspection.We have to know,would he veto anti-Israel resolutions at the Security Council like Bush/ Clinton/Bush and Reagan or not?
Why did he support a resolution ( the only Dem Presidential candidate to do so) that would ban Cluster bombs? This was aimed at Israel in its battle against Hizbollah. These and similar questions--VERY, VERY SPECIFIC IN NATURE should be asked and answered not by feel -good surrogates, but by the candidate.

Bush has been the best friend Israel has had.Our community should strive for a continuity and improvement of pro-Israel policies,and be careful of empty rhetoric.

Obama/McCain Part II

Elliot Ganchrow writes:



While it is true that Obama has run a good campaign, he is benefitted greatly from a media that has largely embraced his run as the second-coming of JFK (i.e. a return to Camelot). This largely explains the media giving a free pass to Obama on his lack of experience and the lack of substance to his campaign so far. For example, it has been interesting to see how the media has covered what should otherwise have been three huge stories with respect to the Obama campaign. The first is that Obama appears to be backing out of his initial decision to accept public funding of his campaign in the general election if his Republican opponent did the same. Now that Obama has proven to be a prolific fund raiser, opting into public funding would put him on equal footing with McCain. Second, Michelle Obama stated this week that "for the first time in my adult lifetime, I am proud of my country". She has never been proud of this great country before her husband ran for President? Is that possible? Third, it appears that Obama blatantly plagiarized a speech that was given earlier by Governor Patrick of Massachusetts. What makes this ironic was that the speech dealt with the importance of "words". This is the type of scandal which has caused previous presidential campaigns to end (see Joe Biden, 1988). It is of little consequence to me that Obama and Patrick are friends. The point is that Obama's campaign has been built largely on his soaring rhetoric and now we find out that he has been ripping it off from others. This made even more amazing by the fact that everyone knows that with the internet, people can detect this type of blantant plagiarism in seconds. It is astounding that Obama thought he could get away with it. The media's reaction to all of this has been to ignore the first story, allow the Obamas off the hook on the second and explain away the third. Meanwhile, the ridiculous story on John McCain that appeared in the New York Times has been big news all over the media. It will be interesting to see how long Obama continues to get preferential treatment from the media.

____________________________________________________________________

I wanted to clear up a point I made in one of last week's blogs. While I stated that I would consider voting for the Democrat rather than for a liberal Republican, I should have made clear that such a notion only applied if Clinton (whose campaign is literally imploding in front of our eyes) is the nominee. There is no way I would ever consider voting for Obama. Whether or not Obama is a closet Muslim is not the problem. His views on the Middle East, Iran and Israel make him the most dangerous major party candidate in the last thirty years (right ahead of Pat Buchanan and Jesse Jackson) to the Jewish community. For the best summary that I have seen as to the true danger we face with an Obama presidency see here: http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/01/barack_obama_and_israel.html
Jewish politicians who are supporting Obama should have to answer the tough question of how they can support someone with these types of views and advisors. If Obama is the presidential candidate from the Democratic Party, then I will unequivocally be behind John McCain.



____________________________________________________________________

One follow-up with respect to my hesitancy to vote for John McCain

Clinton/Clemens and House Democrats

Elliot Ganchrow writes:

It had been my belief during the summer that Senator Clinton, despite her weaknesses as a candidate would prevail over Senator Obama for three reasons: money, organization and her husband. And yet, we find ourselves in the middle of February, with Obama with an advantage over Clinton for those exact reasons. Obama's fundraising prowess has been nothing short of awesome, while Clinton has been so short of funds that she recently lent her campaign $5 million and now some of her staff are foregoing getting paid. Her organization has been a mess and recently she fired her campaign manager. Bill Clinton has been one of the campaign's worst liabilities with his frequent temper tantrums and otherwise bizzare pronouncements. Her shortcomings as a candidate have been obvious over the last few months- she emits a plastic and artificial persona, she is a poor speaker and her debating skills leave much to be desired. Despite all that, she still has a chance to win, although her chances rely on superdelegates and a fight over the seating of delegates from Michigan and Florida. The runup to the Democratic Coonvention should be interesting.

___________________________________________________________________

Shame on the House Democrats. First, yesterday they authorized hearings which investigated whether Roger Clemens took steroids while pitching in the Major Leagues. What a colossal waste of taxpayers money. Why is it Congress' business to investigate what Clemens did or did not do 10 years ago? Then, this morning the House Democrats voted to hold two Bush aides in contempt for not testifying in front of Congress. Republicans walked out of the House chamber in protest. All the while, the Democrats have refused to vote on important legislation dealing with surveillance. Its no wonder Congress' approval rating is less than that of President Bush.

MCCAIN AND THE CONSERVATIVES

Elliot Ganchrow writes:

Tonight's victories by Senator John McCain erases any possible doubts that he will be the Republican presidential nominee in the fall. The question that conservative Republicans like myself have to answer is whether McCain is a candidate that they can support. Afterall, as has been pointed out by the media over the last few months, there are very few issues on which conservatives and McCain agree. Whether its tax cuts, campaign finance, education, immigration, drilling in Alaska or his membership in the Gang of 14 or his brief contemplation of joining John Kerry as his VP choice, a less ideal candidate would be impossible to find. The question therefore is whether it is better to support McCain or hope that one of the Democrats is victorious, with an expectation that its easier to fight a liberal Democrat than a liberal Democrat who will claim he is bipartisan. There have been two main arguments that I have seen presented as to why conservatives should support McCain despite his many flaws:

1. The first argument is that the next President will have the opportunity to choose at least two (and maybe more) nominees to the Supreme Court. The argument goes that it would be better to have McCain choose the next Supreme Court justices rather than a President Obama or Clinton. This is hardly an overwhelming argument. I wouldn't trust McCain to pick a conservative. Further, it is hardly true that any pick by McCain would necessarily be better than a pick by the Democratic alternatives. The three worst justices on current Supreme Court (Stevens, Souter and Kennedy) were all picked by Republican Presidents. There is no telling who McCain might pick and his status as a Republican would make it harder for conservatives to stop his nominee. I wouldn't vote for McCain on the basis of this issue.

2. The second argument is more compelling and was put forward by Mitt Romney as he dropped out of the race. He said, in essence, that a victory by Clinton or Obama would be tantamount to a surrender with respect to the War in Iraq and the War on Terror. Those who believe that these are important fights cannot allow defeatists like Obama or Clinton come to power. There are few politicians who can talk as persuasively and effectively on these issues (especially on Iraq) than McCain. Ultimately, it will be this issue that brings the party together in support of McCain in the general election.

secret negotiations / liberal primary voters /Rush and the conservatives

The revelations that secret PA-Israel talks have taken place, should come as no suprise. Every country that has negotiations with an enemy, has secret meetings.What makes this important, is the fact that Shas has promised to leave the coalition if Jerusalem is on the agenda-which it evidently was.
What kind of excuse will we get now, for not leaving?
PM Olmert,has blasted the Sderot residents for fomenting fear after the daily barrages of Kassams on their homes.Anger is not a policy he claims.
Rather, he would like to be very Christian about it, and turn the other cheek!

=========================================================================

I watched Obama's talk to the Virginia Democratic party last nite.He was terrific-and I could see how the heart throbbers-a la Elvis or the Beatles are jumping.
However before we coronate him as Pres.,we should remember Democratic caucus voters are the left of the left.They are in higher economic brackets, and they come out in only relatively large numbers.This is because the caucuses,might have under 30,000 voters in a State.
Before you crown him the winner, let's wait for the remaining big States.
These primary voters are the ones who defeated Lieberman by Lamont in the primary. We saw how that turned out

=================================================================
Listening to Rush on the radio Fri, made me sick. He emphasized,that it is only the Senate races that can prevent a liberal takeover.
Yet, it is the President who can pull the troops from Iraq and Afghanistan.It is the Pres who can stand up to Iran and Nicaragua.Only the President can deal with N Korea, appoint S.C. Judges, and so on.
Rush and his compatriots have gone out on a limb,with no egress.It's time to return to normalcy.
The logic is not there, and their daily harangues are not helping their cause.

DURING MY VACATION, MY SON ELLI WILL BLOG (if he has the time)

Speaking out of both sides if the mouth / a reminder of the Hillary- Lieberman relationship

Reading todays Jerusalem Post,we see both Eli Yishai of Shas, and Ehud Barak of Labor, placing a spin on their remaining in the coalition.
Yishai predicted elections by Nov., and Barak again said Olmert has to take personal responsibility fot the war and Winograd.
What do they really mean? what is their timetable?
WHAT A WAY TO RUN A GOVERNMENT!

====================================================================

As I thought more about my blog yesterday on Hillary and Joe, I recalled an interesting tidbit.
When Hillary got into the brougha regarding Suha Arafat, as Pres. of the OU, I was going to disinvite Hillary to a previously scheduled luncheon at our headquarters.
I called Lieberman, and elicited his advice.He stated clearly, that I should not disinvite her, for if she wins, she would become a "baalat tshuvah".( one who returns to the faith).
In turn,Hillary asked me to allow Leiberman to introduce her. While I declined. and introduced her myself, Hhe did follow me with a glowing intro.
Amazing how perspectives change in politics.
===============================================================

I was told that Mike Huckabee had a small meeting today with pro-Israel activists in NY , and they were all extremely impressed with his presentation, and knowledge of the issues.
I heard most of McCains speech to the Conservative CPAC, and I felt he did well.
Those who want to sit out the elections, will have to answer for defeat in Iraq,and against terrorism should the Dems win.

What Goes Around..

I could not help thinking last nite as I saw Joe Lieberman standing behind John McCain , how things might have been different.
When Lieberman ran for re-election, the Move-On.Org people mobilized the left in Ct.,to support Lamont.When Lamont defeated Lieberman in the primary, a few Democratic Senators,stood behind Joe. Hillary was not one of them..
She could have remained silent,or placed Country over party.However, her eyes were on the Presidential primaries.
And so, Lieberman won,which allowed him total freedom to speak out on national defense issues,and of course campaign for McCain.
Now,these same left wingers, have turned on Hillary and she lost the State yesterday to Obama.
A fitting ending to an act of political cowardice.

One has to respect the Obama showing,and evidently it's really not over until the fat lady sings.That could be at the convention.
Will the super-delegates or the credentials committee findings,lead to such hard feelings,that it could endanger the unity that the Dems expected? STAY TUNED=it's great political theater.

I want to amplify my praise of Huckabee.I would not want him as the number one on the ticket, because he in my opinion does not appreciate the need to keep religion out of politics.As number two on a McCain ticket,his choice would be more palatable.

HAPPY BIRTHDAY MENNO

HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO MY FRIEND AND MECHUTAN MENNO RATZKER.HE IS A TIRELESS WORKER AND LEADER OF SHAARE ZEDEK HOSPITAL IN JERUSALEM.

Profiles in Courage or Politics ? /candy in Gaza/ Question:Can you name one Obama accomplishment?

The decision by Ehud Barak to retain his Cabinet seat, is couched in terms that would make it appear he is doing it for partiotic purposes.The peace process, the Dimona attack , the rockets in Sderot etc.This would be fine, if we somehow didn't know that he is afraid to face the voters,and is hoping to build up his image in the polling against Bibi.When he twice made his promise to resign after Winograd,conditions on the ground were the SAME!
There is little signs of PROFILES in COURAGE in ISRAEL.It's more likely, "I love my Volvo and driver."

========================================================================
It was interesting to read Mike Huckabee's op-ed in yesterdays Jerusalem Post, and to note that he has visited Israel nine times.HE IS A REAL FRIEND.
My thoughts are,that if McCain (as looks likely) wins the nomination ,he will need a real Conservative as V.P. nominee.I previously mentioned Newt.Huckabee and Gov. Charlie Crist of Fla, who traveled to N.J. yesterday with McCain would be good choices.

=================================================================

Note: Arab children in Gaza celebrating the suicide bomber attack in Dimona, by handing out candy to motorists .

================================================================

Yesterday Sean Hannity on his program had Frank Luntz ,the pollster interviewing a group of Democratic voters.Sean had Luntz ask the group of about 25 people ," could you name a single Obama accomplishment? NOT A SINGLE RESPONSE!
So much for his record and past-its all star power-period=he is like a ROCK-STAR
plenty of music,prose, PR, but where is the BEEF?

We need not a ROCK-STAR PRESIDENT

I clearly remember the last Democratic National Convention where Senate candidate Barack Hussein Obama made a major address.I recall either before or after,Obama sitting with the cable Tv people,and they were touting him as a fresh "leader" who would be a force in future national elections. I'm sorry I don't recall the exact words, but I remember saying to myself, "He has not even won his contest, or served a day in the Senate and yet the left wing broadcasters are pushing this man."
As we look at the current contest, it is clear that Barack has rock-star appeal.He is young, light on his feet and photogenic. He occasionally borders on great oratory There is an element of poetry in his words.
Yet, it is clear, that we are not electing a poet laureate, or an intellect.Rather, there are serious issues that threaten us not only today, but for decades in the future.How we will respond to Islamic terror and fundamentalism will determine our future.Of course the economy is vital.However, the economy runs in cycles, and the power of America is such that we beat Germany and Japan and Communism because in the end we are an economic giant.There may be a credit cruch, or a recession of sorts, but we have been through them before,only to come out stronger than before.Yes health care is important,as is the future of Social Security and Medicare.However, if our country and our way of life is threatened here and abroad,all of that is
secondary.
Obama and the Democrats, have refused to recognize the true threats we are under.They have stalled the Intelligence Bill,tried to micro-manage the military,and used partisanship to the detriment of our country.They are in bed with the worst left wing elements of our body politic.As pointed out in the op-ed in todays WSJ by Gerstein, these are the people who tried unsuccessfully to beat Joe Lieberman.
If we want a made for TV rock-star President, my vote is for Obama.If we want someone who is truly prepared( no phoney baloney) from day 1 to be Commander-in-Chief , my vote is for John McCain.
And to those "conservative" commentators who persist in attacking McCain, or in saying they will stay home or vote for Hillary if he is nominated,then I say 2 things.
1-go out and meet a cross section of Republican supporters,who voted for Reagan, Bush I and II;
2-you are as dangerous to the Republican Party as Move-On.Org or the Kos is to the Dems.

Barak the liberal NEOPHYTE

A few thoughts before the Sabbath:
The announcement by the National Journal that Sen. Barak Obama is the most liberal Senate member in 2007 merely proves how left he has gone in this cycle.But not far behind is Hillary ( # 16) as they try to capture the left wing of the party.
The difference is, that Obama has always been a leftie, but Hillary has tried to be a centrist for 6-7 years on foreign affairs, but has had to bow to political realities.
The endorsement of Obama , by MOVE ON. ORG , may help him on Super Tues., but Americans know who they are.
The worst thing of yesterday,is Barak"s announcement that he would call a summit of Muslim Nations if elected.What does he think they will tell him? Have Israel withdraw,give up Jerusalem,etc, etc.
This is the height of naivet'ee.
Beware of a Barak Presidency!