FJM Blog

38% Believe Resulting Job Losses Would Fall Heaviest on Blacks

56% Say Congress Fails to Adequately Take Into Account Their “Economic and Quality of Life” Concerns

For Release: June 24, 2009
Contact: David Almasi at (202) 543-4110 or e-mail dalmasi@nationalcenter.org

Democrats risk alienating one of their most important constituencies by advancing the Waxman-Markey climate change bill this week or any time before an economic recovery is underway, according to the non-partisan National Center for Public Policy Research.

The National Center for Public Policy Research bases this conclusion on the results of a nationwide poll it commissioned of African-Americans. The poll, released today, suggests anxiety in the black community over Waxman-Markey-style regulations.

The survey of 800 African-Americans included 640 self-identified Democrats (80%) and 32 Republicans (4%).

Among the poll’s key findings:

* 76% of African-Americans want Congress to make economic recovery its top priority, even if it delays action on climate change;

* 38% believe job losses resulting from climate change legislation would fall heaviest on the African-American community. Only 7% believe job losses would fall heaviest on Hispanics and only 2% believe they would fall heaviest on whites;

* 56% believe Washington policymakers have failed to adequately take into account the economic and quality of life concerns of the African-American community when formulating climate change policy;

* 52% of respondents aren’t willing pay anything more for either gasoline or electricity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 73% are unwilling to pay more than 50 cents more for a gallon of gas and 76% are unwilling to pay more than $50 more per year for electricity to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions;

* African-Americans are virtually deadlocked on whether to proceed with plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions if doing so increases consumer prices and unemployment. 44% of those surveyed said emissions reductions should not proceed under these circumstances, while 45% said they should continue. Significantly, a strong majority (59% to 33%) of those surveyed in the West North Central Region (Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Nebraska) and a plurality (43% to 42%) of those in the East Central Region (Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin) opposed emissions reductions if they increase costs or unemployment.

“If concern about a Waxman-Markey-style climate change bill is running this high among group of predominantly Obama voters, it’s bound to be much higher among the general population,” said David A. Ridenour, vice president of The National Center for Public Policy Research, who directs the group’s Center for Public Opinion Policy Center, which issued the poll. “African-Americans are unwilling to pay even a cent more for gas and electricity to reduce greenhouse emissions. Many are concerned that the costs of the regulations will fall disproportionately on them. And an overwhelming majority of African-Americans prefer to put economic recovery before action on climate change. All this spells a bad climate for climate change legislation. If Speaker Pelosi ignores these signs of discontent within her party’s base, she does so at her own peril.”

“It’s also significant that the poll shows that support for the kind of climate legislation backed by the Democratic leadership is very weak in the central states.” Ridenour added, “As the overwhelming majority of the people we polled are self-identified Democrats and Obama voters, one would expect them to largely agree with the Democratic leadership on this high-profile issue, but they don’t. This may in part be why Speaker Nancy Pelosi has run into strong resistance to the Waxman-Markey bill from Democratic Congressmen representing the central states.”

The scientific, telephone survey of 800 African American adults was conducted by Wilson Research Strategies and has a margin of error of +/- 3.4%. The survey, with crosstabs, can be viewed at: http://www.nationalcenter.org/BlackOpinion.html.

The National Center for Public Policy Research is non-partisan, non-profit educational foundation based in Washington, DC. It is a truly independent foundation with 94% of its revenue derived through hundreds of thousands of small contributions. Just 1.5% of its revenue comes from corporations and 4.5% from philanthropic foundations.

Visit the National Center for Public Policy Research’s website at www.nationalcenter.org or call (202) 543-4110.

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
No Comments »

By Thomas Sowell

A Gallup poll last week showed that far more Americans describe themselves as “conservatives” than as “liberals.” Yet Republicans have been clobbered by the Democrats in both the 2008 elections and the 2006 elections.

In a country with more conservatives than liberals, it is puzzling– in fact, amazing– that we have the furthest left President of the United States in history, as well as the furthest left Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Republicans, especially, need to think about what this means. If you lose when the other guy has all the high cards, there is not much you can do about it. But, when you have the high cards and still keep taking a beating, then you need to re-think how you are playing the game.

The current intramural fighting among Republicans does not necessarily mean any fundamental re-thinking of their policies or tactics. These tussles among different segments of the Republican Party may be nothing more than a long-standing jockeying for position between the liberal and conservative wings of that party.

The stakes in all this are far higher than which element becomes dominant in which party or which party wins more elections. Both the domestic and the foreign policy direction of the current administration in Washington are leading this country into dangerous waters, from which we may or may not be able to return.

A quadrupling of the national debt in just one year and accepting a nuclear-armed sponsor of international terrorism like Iran are not things from which any country is guaranteed to recover.

Just two nuclear bombs were enough to get Japan to surrender in World War II. It is hard to believe that it would take much more than that for the United States of America to surrender– especially with people in control of both the White House and the Congress who were for turning tail and running in Iraq just a couple of years ago.

Perhaps people who are busy gushing over the Obama cult today might do well to stop and think about what it would mean for their grand-daughters to live under sharia law.

The glib pieties in Barack Obama’s televised sermonettes will not stop Iran from becoming a nuclear terrorist nation. Time is running out fast and we will be lucky if it doesn’t happen in the first term of this president. If he gets elected to a second term — which is quite possible, despite whatever economic disasters he leads us into– our fate as a nation may be sealed.

Unfortunately, the only political party with any chance of displacing the current leadership in Washington is the Republican Party. That is why their internal squabbles are important for the rest of us who are not Republicans.

Read more here

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
No Comments »

Project 21 Members Say Lawmakers Should “Move On”

For Release: June 22, 2009
Contact: David Almasi at 202/543-4110 x11 or Project21@nationalcenter.org

The U.S. Senate resolution apologizing for slavery and segregation will be used as a lobbying tool to acquire reparations payments, say members of the black leadership network Project 21.  The group urges the Senate to “move on,” saying the apology will do little to heal perceived racial gaps.

On June 18, the U.S. Senate unanimously passed a resolution apologizing for slavery and segregation in the United States.  While the resolution was written with the intention that it could not be used to support claims for monetary reparations, reparations activists Randall Robinson told the Washington Post the legislation constitutes a “confession” that will aid the process of acquiring reparations.  Harvard professor Charles Ogletree said the resolution should not be a substitute for reparations, saying, “that battle will be prolonged.”

Project 21 members voicing skepticism about the politics behind the resolution and the need for it include:

Jerry Brooks (Auburn, WA):  ”I’ll accept the Senate’s apology, but let’s move on already.  This apology is something that might have been more appropriate long ago, and now it’s likely going to be misused by those with a political axe to grind.  In particular and despite its intention to the contrary, it is already being used to promote reparations.  Not only is this an idea without merit, but an extremely foolish one to be clinging to while our nation is trying to recover from its current economic distress.”

Brooks continued, “I also take offense to the ignorant partisan attacks involved in this debate.  In trying to infer Republicans are responsible for slavery is downright silly considering that the party came about as part of the movement to abolish slavery.”

Jimmie L. Hollis (Millville, NJ): “As an American of African ancestry, I think this apology is ridiculous and useless.  It is just another ‘feel good’ action.  If we are to start apologizing for every injustice and wrong done in the past, we will spend the next few decades just apologizing. Let’s move on.”

Bob Parks (Athol, MA):  ”Why the need to do this now?  Are we attempting to keep the First Lady proud of her country?”

Parks added, “The problem is that, when you apologize, it’s important that the recipient knows the reason for the apology and who is giving it.  It wasn’t the entire Senate whose former party slogan was ‘the White Man’s Party’ or fostered the Ku Klux Klan or resisted black civil rights efforts until it was realized just how the black voting bloc could be used for political advantage.  But why the entire Senate is apologizing for evil past doings, once supported by the Democrat Party, is a mystery to me.”

Project 21, a nonprofit and nonpartisan organization sponsored by the National Center for Public Policy Research, has been a leading voice of the African-American community since 1992.  For more information, contact David Almasi at (202) 543-4110 x11 or Project21@nationalcenter.org, or visit Project 21’s website at http://www.project21.org/P21Index.html.

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
No Comments »

By Harry R. Jackson, Jr.

For several years I (and others) have called the way in which immigrants both documented and undocumented – “the new slavery.” If you believe that politics as usual can die, the president’s statements about immigration at the Esperanza National Hispanic Prayer Breakfast and Conference last week were very encouraging.

President Obama declared that he is committed to a “comprehensive immigration overhaul.” The dilemma with this statement is that the word “comprehensive” often includes an amnesty provision for undocumented persons. The problem with blanket amnesty is that there is a wide variety of people within the huge immigrant community, ranging from criminals who scoff at our laws to dedicated family people. To date, a great number of pandering politicians want to avoid dealing with the complexity of the current situation by simply waving the magic wand of amnesty.

The president paid homage to all the right aspects of the problem. He said three important things:

1. U.S. borders must be strengthened to thwart illegal immigration.

2. Provisions must be made to deal with illegals.

3. Employers of undocumented workers are a huge part of the problem.

Specifically the president stated, “The American people believe in immigration, but they also believe that we can’t tolerate a situation where people come to the United States in violation of the law, nor can we tolerate employers who exploit undocumented workers in order to drive down wages.”

Although there has been a resurgence of actual chattel slavery around the world, the phrase “the new slavery” has been reserved for the American problem of immigration. I coined this phrase nearly five years ago. The comparison with the African-American condition was a natural one because chattel slavery in the U.S. was based on economics. Further, slavery took years to resolve because the moral outrage around the issue was less demanding that the economic needs of the nation. While racism was used to justify this abomination, it took a civil war to ultimately free the slaves. Finally, the victims of American slavery could not free themselves.

In the American culture of our day, there is a very large economic component of the problem which is complicated by the fact that both parties would like to make political capital (namely the large Hispanic swing vote) by claiming credit for breaking the shackles of this huge problem.

The specifics of the president’s plan to deal with illegal aliens still seems a little sketchy to me. Simply allowing people “go to the back of the line,” sounds like amnesty. Yet the INS must own the fact that their slow administration is a part of the problem. I have known people that were deported days before their green card arrived because of they failed to adhere to conflicting rules coming from different branches of the same organization. Others have waited for up to seven years to resolve the problems with their status.

All the major aspects of the president’s plan Tony Perkins and I mentioned previously in our book Personal Faith, Public Policy. As I have already stated amnesty seems to be the major sticking point we have with his plan thus far. We must have people come out of the shadows for their own sakes. Yet there must be more to the plan than paying a fine, learning English, and getting to the back of the line. On the other hand, permanently deporting 12 million people seems impractical.

Let me share about two diverse chicken companies I wrote about a couple of years ago. Late in 2006, Swift & Co. (a meat processor) was raided in six states and 1,200 people were arrested on alleged identity theft and immigration violations. This raid sent a signal to large companies that they were not exempt from the law. Swift could no longer be a third world plant on American soil.

As much as I rejoice over the way companies like Swift were handled, smaller companies operating in smaller communities could have their survival threatened by hasty enforcement transitions. Let me give you an example. Labor Day weekend 2006, Crider Inc. based in Stillmore, GA lost nearly 700 of its mostly Hispanic 900-member work force. Originally, Crider’s processing lines were made up predominantly of African-Americans but gradually Latinos dominated the work force. Since the late 1990s, the Hispanic population has tripled in the state of Georgia.

After the Crider raid, the black community temporarily benefited from the new jobs which were made available. Crider experienced a crisis and needed 300 employees to return to normal output levels. Unfortunately, the company did not think through its transition. The company suddenly raised pay. Next, they sought replacement workers. Two hundred were hired through a state funded employment agency. The plant was ill-prepared for such a dramatic change of workers and black workers did not stick. The company experienced high employee turnover and threats of legal action from disgruntled new employees. The plant’s productivity dropped by nearly 50%.

In both cases I have cited, the positions opened by the raids were an invitation to be permanently added to the bottom rung of the American work force. In the future, even naturalized employees will want something to look forward to - a career path or a personal road to prosperity.

I think progress will be made if we tackle one issue at a time instead of bundling too many complex issues together. It seems to me that immigration reform has to become a priority - not an afterthought. Pat answers and blanket amnesty approaches simply muddy the waters. Therefore, I recommend we close the borders and start the long process of Americanizing American businesses so that free enterprise can truly work. You can read a more comprehensive review of our solutions to the immigration dilemma in Personal Faith, Public Policy.

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
No Comments »

By Star Parker

The Democrats’ health care initiative reminds me of the joke about the Boy Scout fighting on a street corner with an old lady.

When a passerby asked what was going on, the scout said, “I’m trying to help her across the street but she refuses to go.”

Health insurance, so far, is not mandatory by law, and we’ve got 16 percent of the population – 47 million or so – without it. Auto insurance is mandatory by law, and according to the Insurance Research Council, 14 percent of drivers nationwide still don’t buy it.

Government can’t make people do what they don’t want to do. And it can’t change human nature.

Political freedom and capitalism work so well because they reflect the truth that human beings have free choice – but this means individuals take personal responsibility.

The left has always been in denial about this, which is why they’re endlessly trying to expand government and reduce freedom. They see individuals as hapless victims the state must take care of.

During the presidential campaign, Barack Obama said “The reason people don’t have health insurance isn’t because they don’t want it. It’s because they can’t afford it.”

This is largely untrue.

According to a new study from the Employment Policy Institute, authored by two economists from City University of New York (one, Dr. June O’Neill, spent four years as head of the Congressional Budget Office), 43 percent of the 47 million can afford insurance and choose not to purchase it.

According to 2007 census data, 20 percent of uninsured households earn over $75,000.

Regarding the remaining 57 percent, the authors call them “involuntarily” uninsured because they can’t afford insurance. But “involuntarily” is also a misnomer, because it implies no connection in how they choose to live to the fact that they can’t afford insurance.

The study provides the following portrait of this population: About a third are high school dropouts; they are disproportionately young; about a third are immigrants, mostly Hispanic non-citizens; about half are single without children; about 40 percent did not work during the year.

Pulling immigrants out of the equation, we’re left with an uninsured population that can’t afford insurance about a third the size of the widely quoted 47 million. It’s a population that is generally poor, young, uneducated and not working.

We’re already set up to deal with these folks. Either through Medicaid or covering their emergency room visits. The operative question is do we want to further institutionalize this reality into a new national health care plan involving trillions in new taxes and programs.

I think the answer is clear. No.

What should we do?

A recent study by consulting firm McKinsey & Co on American education estimates an increase of our annual GDP of $500 billion by getting education performance of black and Latino kids up to the national average. Otherwise stated, it is costing us $500 billion per year not to do this.

This dwarfs the excessive costs in health care our president now calls our No. 1 economic problem.

It is simply not credible for Mr. Obama to propose taxing Americans trillions to subsidize health care when he refuses to come to grips with why so many are poor.

Open the door to millions of poor kids out of broken families, broken public schools and the cycle of poverty through school choice. Give them the opportunity to go to church schools.

Rather than perpetuating poverty through further institutionalization of the welfare state, expose poor kids to the values and education necessary to enable them to make the right choices for their lives.

There is no future for a nation of victims, whether we’re talking about health care or anything else. But there is a great future for a country of responsible, free people.

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
No Comments »

By Herman Cain

Last week my 10-year-old granddaughter gave me a card she made herself that had some hearts drawn on it with the simple message, “Pa Pa, thanks for being there for me.” Yes, it brought a big smile to my face.

That simple message immediately reminded me of three things: The two times I had no one to turn to except my dad – and he was there for me – and the very first time I saw my granddaughter’s face on the day she was born.

I was very blessed to have had my dad in my life for 37 years, and he was a dad who was truly one of my heroes in life. The two times he bailed me out of a financial emergency were great, but not as great as the unquestionable knowledge and feeling that he loved his family, and that he was always there for me, my brother and my mom.

Many people have heard me tell the true story of my first thought when I saw my granddaughter’s face for the first time. I did not think about what I could do to help her parents give her a better start in life, or how big of an inheritance I wanted to leave her someday.

My first thought was: What do I do to make this a better world for this little face and all of the other little faces?

That first thought still inspires me today, which is common for most of us. But, we have a lot of work to do.

This country has gradually gotten off track and is moving in the wrong direction from what our Founding Fathers envisioned and established. I know that one person cannot turn things around single-handedly, but we can each do what we can do, to borrow a phrase from the closing song of the 2000 Olympics.

Here’s what we can do:

People who believe in less government, less taxes and less dependence on government (conservatives) can continue to fight the liberal express in Washington, D.C. Although we are hugely outnumbered in the rarefied air of the administration, Congress and the mainstream media, we are not outnumbered on the ground among the real people.

In fact, just one week ago the Gallup Organization released an updated poll that said: “Thus far in 2009, 40% of Americans interviewed in national Gallup Poll surveys describe their political views as conservative, 35% moderate, and 21% as liberal.”

Conservatives clearly outnumber liberals, but liberals won the White House and a larger majority in Congress. Our challenge is to convert that ground strength into legislative impact. Here’s how.

First, we can and must continue to voice our opposition loudly and collectively to wrongheaded, anti-liberty and anti-free-market proposals. There are some moderate Democrats who are against these socialist policies, and they recognize that their congressional seats may not be bullet-proof in November 2010. They need to know we are paying attention.

Second, the power of the ballot box has not diminished. It has just been temporarily hijacked by liberals. Thomas Jefferson observed that “The American people won’t make a mistake, if they are given all of the facts.”

We can continue to give people the facts, because the real facts about this administration and Congress are becoming frighteningly clearer every day.

We can take back our government, so that the country we know today will be there for our grandchildren and all of the new little faces tomorrow.

Now that’s what we can do and we will.

© 2009 North Star Writers Group. May not be republished without permission.

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
No Comments »

“Huff N Puff” Andre Carr Music Video from B Mason on Vimeo.

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
No Comments »

Expanding Government Poses a Danger to Individual Rights, Liberties Celebrated on Emancipation Holiday

For Release: June 19, 2009
Contact: David Almasi at 202/543-4110 x11 or Project21@nationalcenter.org

On the occasion of “Juneteenth,” the oldest and most recognized annual commemoration of the end of slavery in the United States, members of the Project 21 black leadership network suggest the civil rights-themed holiday be used to celebrate freedoms that have been won and as a warning of how easily freedom can be threatened by an overbearing government.

Project 21 members have called attention to the Juneteenth since 1999, urging black Americans to use Juneteenth to embrace their inherent talents and strengthen their ties with family and community.

Now, when the Obama Administration and Congress are increasing government intervention into the lives of all Americans, Project 21 members suggest that people reflect upon how this expansion of power can reduce the threaten individual freedom.

“The liberties we enjoy today came at a tremendous cost and after a lot of suffering,” said Project 21 fellow Deneen Borelli.  ”Today historically marks the day of the opening of the door to opportunity for blacks to seek ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.’  We should take advantage of this liberty to strive to improve our lives and build upon the sacrifices of those who fought for freedom.”

“It’s important to remember that Juneteenth is rooted in our achieving our freedom. It is the growth of an activist government intent on regulating most - if not all - aspects of our lives that is now threatening that freedom,” said Project 21 member Bishop Council Nedd II.  ”There’s a lot at risk should politics be allowed to take precedence over the protection of individual rights.  Environmental regulations, for instance, already substantially affect private property rights and the ability for many to conduct legitimate business. Just think of what might happen to our independence if we are forced to rely on a partisan government for health care, to determine if we can buy a car or how we can worship without offending perceived sensibilities?  This is something we need to consider as we mark Juneteenth this year.”

Project 21 member Ak’bar Shabazz added: “As our nation advances rapidly away from embracing personal responsibility towards government protection and oversight, we should keep in mind that these freed slaves wanted only the opportunity to be free and control their own destinies.  Their attitudes towards freedom contrasts greatly from today, as many people look for more government control over their lives.”

Juneteenth commemorates the anniversary of the June 19, 1865 arrival of Union soldiers in Galveston, Texas. The soldiers carried the news that the Civil War was over and that President Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation had abolished slavery two-and-a-half years earlier.

The annual commemoration became known as Juneteenth and quickly became a stabilizing as well as motivating presence in the lives of black Americans in Texas, who faced many uncertainties associated with newly-acquired freedom.  The observance quickly spread from Texas to be recognized across the United States.

Juneteenth is celebrated in many ways, but education and self-improvement have been consistent themes at commemorative community gatherings and picnics in recent years. In 1980, Juneteenth was made an official holiday in Texas.  According to the National Juneteenth Holiday Campaign, 25 states currently recognize Juneteenth as a state holiday.

Project 21, a nonprofit and nonpartisan organization sponsored by the National Center for Public Policy Research, has been a leading voice of the African-American community since 1992.  For more information, contact David Almasi at (202) 543-4110 x11 or Project21@nationalcenter.org, or visit Project 21’s website at http://www.project21.org/P21Index.html.

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
No Comments »

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
No Comments »

By  Ken Blackwell

Editor’s Note: Mr. Blackwell is an advisor to the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs.

When the Germans moved their capital from Bonn to Berlin, the U.S. Embassy in Germany moved to Berlin, too. When the Brazilians moved their capital from Rio de Janeiro to Brasilia, the U.S. Embassy followed suit. When Jimmy Carter extended diplomatic recognition in 1979 to the People’s Republic of China, the U.S. Embassy on Taiwan shut down and our diplomats obediently opened up shop in Beijing. So where is the U.S. Embassy in Israel?

It’s in Tel Aviv. It’s probably the only case of a U.S. Embassy not being in the city that the host country claims as its capital. And there’s a reason our embassy is not in Jerusalem: We don’t want to antagonize Israel’s Arab enemies.

This point gains special significance now that President Obama has sent former Sen. George Mitchell to Jerusalem. Mitchell is Obama’s enforcer. Mitchell’s task is to pressure Israel to “freeze” settlements in Judea and Samaria, on the West Bank of the River Jordan.

In his speech in Cairo earlier this month, President Obama essentially bought into the Arab position on Israel—that the creation of the Jewish state in the Middle East was a result of European guilt for the Holocaust. This position ignores the historical fact that Jews have lived in Judea and Samaria—and in their capital of Jerusalem—since long before their Roman conquerors dispersed thousands of Jews throughout the known world. Zionism—the political movement that holds that Jews have a right to return to their ancient homeland—began seriously in the 1890s. That was long decades before Adolf Hitler’s rise to power.

Obama’s bad history is now leading to even worse diplomacy. Jimmy Carter, perhaps panting for another Nobel peace prize, is in the Mid-East, planning to meet with others who want to de-stabilize Israel. Hamas—the terrorist gang that controls the Gaza Strip—will roll out the red carpet for the former U.S. President.

Carter calls all Jewish settlement on the West Bank “illegal and [an] obstacle to peace. The Israelis took Carter’s advice on Gaza. They dismantled all their settlements there. They handed over the land to the Palestinians. They followed Carter’s formula of land for peace. And what did they get? Hamas control of Gaza and 6,000 Hamas missiles raining down on Israel. Some deal. Some peace. It might better be called Carter’s “Piece Plan”—handing over territory to Israel’s sworn enemies—piece by piece.

Jimmy Carter has published books and articles likening Israel’s position in the West Bank to that of the apartheid regime in South Africa. He use of apartheid is intended to de-legitimize Israel and bring its downfall—just like the anti-apartheid campaign in the `90s brought an end to the white supremacist regime in South Africa.

Yet what is Carter advocating by freezing the natural growth of Jewish settlement on the West Bank? What Carter is saying, in effect, is that Arabs should be able to continue to live in peace in Tel Aviv, but Jews—and Christians—cannot live in Jericho and Bethlehem. Who’s the real supporter of apartheid?

Carter predicts that President Obama will take the next logical step after he succeeds in freezing Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria: “In the future, I am sure, [Obama] will call for the dismantling of the settlements that exist.”

Since President Obama refuses to talk about moving our embassy to Jerusalem, isn’t it ironic that George Mitchell and his wrecking crew are operating out of their hotel headquarters in—where else?—Jerusalem. Mitchell’s deputy, Mara Rudman, a George Soros follower, is there. So is Gen. Keith Dayton, who is busily training an army for Fatah in the West Bank. Fatah is the name of the “political organization” that formed the core of Yasser Arafat’s Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). Arafat, who personally ordered the murder of U.S. Ambassador Cleo Noel and his aide, virtually invented airline hijacking for purposes of terror.

President Obama’s national security advisor, Marine Gen. Jim Jones, is on record rejecting all Israeli claims to natural growth of their settlements in Judea and Samaria.

Question: If Jews cannot live in Judea and Samaria—where Jews have lived since before the Roman Empire—why should they be allowed to live in Tel Aviv? Tel Aviv was founded only in the early 1900s.

The plan to create a Judenrein—a Jew-free zone on the West Bank of the Jordan—is ultimately a plan to de-stabilize and then dismantle the Jewish state. This is not just a change from George W. Bush; it’s a change from Harry Truman!

That’s how far back U.S. support for Israel goes—right to the beginning of the Jewish state in 1948. But no more. The Obama administration will press and push, prod and peck away at Israel’s basic security needs. If Obama succeeds, Israel may not be destroyed, but she will be much weaker, much more vulnerable, much more in danger from enemies pledged to destroy her. Is that the change America wants? Is that the kind of change Americans voted for?

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
No Comments »