US finally gets it: Jewish freeze won't bring peace

Wednesday, December 08, 2010 | Ryan Jones

A senior US official on Tuesday announced that the Obama Administration was ending its pressure on Israel to impose another Jewish building freeze and would be returning to the drawing board to try and figure out a new approach to brokering peace in the Middle East.

Speaking to reporters via telephone, the official did not openly blame either side for the breakdown, but did hint that Washington had become aware that even if Israel imposed another building freeze, it still wouldn’t result in meaningful negotiations or progress with the Palestinians.

Last month, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that he had agreed in principle with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to impose another freeze for 90 days in order to facilitate renewed peace talks. But the Palestinians immediately said the US-Israeli proposal did not go nearly far enough, as it did not prohibit Jewish construction in Jerusalem and had a very short timetable.

Israel had already implemented a self-imposed 10-month Jewish building freeze from November 2009-September 2010 in order to entice the Palestinians back to the negotiating table. But the Palestinian leadership all but ignore the gesture up until the very last minute, when they joined talks, but threatened to leave if the freeze was not extended indefinitely.

The US now intends to start a new round of consultation with Middle East leaders, and hopes to invite Israeli and Palestinian leaders to Washington this month for separate talks.

But the Palestinians have other plans.

Speaking in Greece on Wednesday, senior Palestinian Authority advisor Yasser Abed Rabbo declared that US efforts to bring peace based on bilateral negotiations have failed and that the Palestinians must now “turn to the broader framework of the international community” to impose a settlement to the conflict.

Rabbo, who was traveling with Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas, suggested that the PA would now turn to the United Nations to recognize an independent Palestinian state, something the US has threatened to veto in the absence of a bilateral agreement with Israel.
source:http://www.israeltoday.co.il/default.aspx?tabid=178&nid=22397

Have American Jews lost faith in Obama?

US president's tough stands regarding Israel seems to be taking its toll as US Jews' support in him falters, contributions to Democratic Party drop 65%

Yitzhak Benhorin
Published: 10.12.10, 07:59 / Israel News

WASHINGTON – Have American Jews given up on US President Barack Obama? Senior members of the US community Jewish have spoken up against Obama's foreign policy regarding Israel, and it what is considered a rarity, have said that should he continue on his current path, they will stop their contributions to the Democratic Party.


Since taking office, it seems as if Obama has lost ground across every sector in the United States, but throughout, he has always enjoyed wide-scale support from US Jews.


Malcolm Hoenlein, the executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, told the Huffington Post that although the US president enjoyed a 78% support rate among American Jews at the time of his election, he has now lost about a third.


According to the report, the Obama administration has annoyed Jewish leaders to the point where they are thinking of sitting out the 2010 election. Federal Election Commission records show contributions to Democratic candidates from the financial sector, where Jews hold important positions, are down 65% from two years ago.


"I started breaking with Obama ten months ago," Martin Peretz, editor in chief of The New Republic, told the Huffington Post, "And I know that a lot of West Coast Jews are also having buyer's remorse."


Hollywood billionaire Haim Saban echoed the sentiment: "The assumption on the part of the Obama administration is that because Jews are liberals, they simply will not vote for Republicans.


"Obama can invite the ten most prolific Jewish campaign bundlers to the White House for a discussion, and give a wonderful speech, and he'll think that this may resolve all his problems with American Jews. And it may – or it may not."


Abraham Foxman, director of the Anti-Defamation League, has voiced his policy concerns to Obama directly. Foxman later said that when the two met, he told the US president that while he agreed with his overall Middle East agenda, the perception was that he was lashing out solely at Israel and exempting the Arabs.


While Obama refuted Foxman's premise, the latter said he still left the meeting feeling that the White House's new strategy was "dangerous."


The Obama administration, said Foxman, believes that if the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is resolved, the wolf and the lamb shall dwell together and all will be well. To that end, all of his advisors are telling him that he should break away from his predecessors' policies and prove to the Arabs and the Muslims that he is different, that he can distance himself from Israel.
source:http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3968020,00.html

Jewish Artist Gives Obama Opportunity to Explain His Belief in Jesus

by Staff
August 27, 2010

LOS ANGELES, (christiansunite.com) -- With only one third of Americans believing President Obama is a Christian, a Jewish artist is stepping forward with a chance for the President to offer testimony of his faith in Jesus.

Internationally renowned artist David Ilan (born in Israel; raised in Los Angeles), is creating what many around the world are calling "the ultimate portrait of Christ." It's made using only dots. Each hand-drawn dot represents a Christian. One dot = one believer.

Each participant is asked to attach a message to their dot answering the artist's question: "Why Jesus?" Ilan sees himself as representing all non-Christians who are uninformed about Jesus Christ.

It will take one million Christians to complete this interactive work of art, known as The People's Portrait of Christ. As more people go to the "Dots For Jesus" website ( www.DotsForJesus.com) to get a free dot in their name, they come together to form the image of Christ.

"The project gives President Obama a unique opportunity to set the record straight about his religious beliefs," Ilan said. "One million other Christians are doing the same thing, so the President isn't being singled out because of the controversy."

Today, Ilan issued an open invitation to the White House for Obama to get his dot and share how Jesus has made a positive difference in his life.

Since Ilan is Jewish, he feels he's in an impartial position to jump into the Christian/Muslim debate over Obama's faith.

Jason Schulz, a Hollywood producer who reserved his dot, said, "Although the President has not placed his faith at the forefront of his persona, I feel that he embraces Christianity. Dots for Jesus is a great way for him to express his faith in a nonpolitical setting."

The President's dot will be the same size as the dots representing all the other Christians who are coming together to form the image of Christ. Obama's dot will be right next to the dots of average people from nearly every country on Earth.

"When it comes to religion, the President is on the same level as everyone. He will be sharing his beliefs about Jesus just like the rest of the Christians in the project. The only difference is that President Obama will be proving something about himself at the same time."
source:http://news.christiansunite.com/Religion_News/religion09622.shtml

On whose side is Obama?

Op-ed: President Obama owes every American apology over handling of mosque affair

Moshe Dann
Published: 08.25.10, 00:01 / Israel Opinion

President Obama's defense of the right of Muslims to build a mosque and Islamic center in New York City turned the issue into one of religious freedom. That was wrong.

Obama's first priority - like that of every national leader - is to speak for his country and on its behalf. Obama's refusal to do so, his insinuation that questions raised about a proposed Islamic mega-center near the site of the 9/11 attacks are un-American, unconstitutional, and prejudiced have shamed every American, and the good name of America.

Obama could have defended America; instead, he apologized for it.

He could have said that 4,400 Americans have died in Iraq, 1,200 have died in Afghanistan, and hundreds of thousands of Americans have been wounded - to help those Muslim countries attain freedom. And of course, hundreds of billions of dollars were spent towards that effort. But he didn't.

Obama might have said that Islam is the fastest growing religion in the US; hundreds of thousands of Muslims have found a home in America since and despite 9/11. He could have said: America has and continues to stand for freedom and democracy. He did not.

He is probably the first American president to malign his own country.

Obama could have explained that American law and values do not support discrimination, certainly not against Muslims; our history proves that. There are about 2,000 mosques in the United States, serving about 8 million Muslims; NYC alone has a dozen mosques. And Muslims are doing well in America: 67% have higher degrees; their average income is over $42,000; 26% earn over $100,000; 67% buy a new car every 3 years.

President Obama could have also noted that most American Muslims don't attend prayer services; mosques are often political and social centers, some of which are problematic.

'Grave threat to non-Muslims’

According to FBI estimates, 10 % of the mosques in the United States are associated with radical Jihadist ideology. Others estimate that 80% of mosques are dominated by the extremist Wahhabi ideology promoted by Saudi Arabia. And they are allowed to practice, under American principles of freedom of religion.

Unlike houses of worship in America which are built and supported by the local population, most mosques receive funding from foreign countries, especially Saudi Arabia.

President Obama might have noted that the Muslim Brotherhood, a Nazi organization that is banned in Egypt, is associated with some American mosques.

A study by Freedom House concluded that American mosques offer a wide selection of Saudi publications that promote hateful ideology, with all materials found to have some connection to Saudi Arabia.

According to the study, these publications advanced a "dualistic worldview in which there exist two antagonistic realms or abodes that can never be reconciled. The study also concluded that these publications "pose a grave threat to non-Muslims and to the Muslim community itself."

President Obama could have explained that this is obviously not an issue of religious freedom. He could have championed America, its reputation, institutions and values. Instead, he reinforced the view that America is bigoted.

For that, President Obama owes every American an apology.
source:http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3943359,00.html

Poll: Growing number incorrectly call Obama Muslim

US survey based on interviews conducted before controversy over ground zero mosque shows 18% think their president is Muslim, up from 11% who said so in March 2009

Associated Press
Published: 08.19.10, 08:03 / Israel News

Nearly one in five people, or 18%, said they think Obama is Muslim, up from the 11% who said so in March 2009, according to a poll released Thursday. The proportion who correctly say he is a Christian is down to just 34%.

The largest share of people, 43%, said they don't know his religion, an increase from the 34% who said that in early 2009.

The survey, conducted by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center and its affiliated Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, is based on interviews conducted before the controversy over whether Muslims should be permitted to construct a mosque near the World Trade Center site. Obama has said he believes Muslims have the right to build an Islamic center there, though he's also said he won't take a position on whether they should actually build it.

About three in 10 of Obama's fiercest political rivals, Republicans and conservatives, say he is a Muslim. That is up significantly from last year and far higher than the share of Democrats and liberals who say so. But even among his supporters, the number saying he is a Christian has fallen since 2009, with just 43% of blacks and 46% of Democrats saying he is Christian.

Among independents, 18% say Obama is Muslim – up from 10% last year.

Pew analysts attribute the findings to attacks by his opponents and Obama's limited attendance at religious services, particularly in contrast with Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, whose worship was more public.

Andrew Kohut, the Pew Research Center's director, said the confusion partly reflects "the intensification of negative views about Obama among his critics." Alan Cooperman, the Pew Forum's associate director for research, said that with the public hearing little about Obama's religion, "maybe there's more possibility for other people to make suggestions that the president is this or he's really that or he's really a Muslim."

'We got information from media'

Obama is the Christian son of a Kenyan father who was raised Muslim. From age 6 to 10, Obama lived in predominantly Muslim Indonesia with his mother and Indonesian stepfather. His full name, Barack Hussein Obama, sounds Muslim to many Americans.

White House officials did not provide on-the-record comments on the survey, but they prompted Pastor Kirbyjon Caldwell of Houston to call The Associated Press.

Caldwell, who said he has known Obama for years, said the president is a Christian who prays every day. He said he was not sure where the public confusion about the president's religion came from, but he called false media reports about it "a 24-hour noise box committed to presenting the president in a false light."

Six in 10 of those saying Obama is a Muslim said they got the information from the media, with the largest portion – 16% - saying it was on television. Eleven percent said they learned it from Obama's behavior and words.

Despite the confusion about Obama's religion, there is noteworthy support for how he uses it to make decisions. Nearly half, or 48%, said he relies on his religion the right amount when making policy choices, 21% said he uses it too little and 11% too much.

At the same time, the poll provides broad indications that the public feels religion is playing a diminished role in politics today, with fewer people than in 2008 saying the Democratic and Republican parties are friendly toward religion.

With elections for control of Congress just over two months away, the poll contains optimistic news for Republicans. Half of white non-Hispanic Catholics, plus three in 10 unaffiliated with a religion and a third of Jews support the GOP – all an increase since 2008.

The survey also found:

* The Democratic Party is seen as friendly to religion by 26%, while 43% say the same about the Republicans. That's a 9 percentage point drop for Republicans since 2008, and 12 points lower for Democrats.
* Fifty-two percent say churches should stay away from politics, a reversal of the slim majorities that supported churches' political involvement from 1996 to 2006.

The poll, overseen by Princeton Survey Research Associates International, involved landline and cell phone interviews with 3,003 randomly chosen adults. It was conducted July 21-August 5 and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 2.5 percentage points.
source:http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3939636,00.html

Senator Reid says mosque shouldn't be built near ground zero

Breaking from President Obama, top Democrat says despite First Amendment, mosque should not be built near site of 9/11 attacks

WASHINGTON - The Senate's top Democrat says a mosque should not be built near the site of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada on Monday became the highest-profile Democrat to break with President Barack Obama, who on Friday backed the right for the developers to build a mosque near ground zero.

In a statement, Reid said the First Amendment protects freedom of religion and he respects that, but the mosque should be built somewhere else.

Critics have said the location of the mosque is insensitive because the terrorists who struck were Islamic extremists.

The plan to build a mosque and Muslim cultural center not far from ground zero in Manhattan has irked the Right. Many Republicans, including former Alaskan governor, Sarah Palin, are working hard, and with significant success, to place the issue on the public agenda ahead of the mid-term elections on November 2.

Reid is in a tight campaign for re-election in Nevada. His opponent, Republican Sharron Angle, earlier in the day called for Reid to say whether he agreed with Obama.
source:http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3937824,00.html

GOP Lawmaker: WH Illegally Funding Kenya Abortion

A Republican congressman has accused the Obama administration of spending U.S. tax dollars on an initiative that would make abortion legal in Kenya.

Citing a report by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., said $23 million has gone to Kenyan groups who are working for passage of a new constitution.

The document would expand current abortion laws, which currently allow the procedure only when the mother's life is in danger.

Smith also said the new constitution was not written by Kenyans, but by U.S.-funded non-governmental organizations working with Planned Parenthood.

Federal law forbids the U.S. government to lobby for abortion in other countries.

"Under no circumstances should the U.S. government take sides," Smith said at a news conference Wednesday. "Yet that is precisely what the Obama administration has done."

Smith and two other congressmen have called for a federal investigation into the administration's funding on the referendum.

"If violations of the law have occurred, which on the face of it they have, the information must be brought before law enforcement," Smith said. "Not even presidents are above the law."

Meanwhile, Christian churches in Kenya are encouraging people to vote against the proposed constitution next week.

The draft document would also establish Islamic Sharia law courts where Muslims could resolve social and family disputes according to their beliefs.
source:http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/2010/July/GOP-Lawmaker-WH-Illegally-Funding-Kenya-Abortion/

Obama Funds Vote on Abortion in Kenya -- Is This How He'll Fund Abortion in the U.S.?

by Staff
July 21, 2010

WASHINGTON, (christiansunite.com) -- New evidence reveals that the Obama administration has given up to $10 million to groups in Kenya that are campaigning for a "Yes" vote on a new constitution that would legalize abortion. Though officials denied the U.S. government is trying to influence the election, documents from U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) show funding agreements with organizations to target certain populations to "drum up political support" for the draft constitution.

The U.S. Embassy in Nairobi claims the U.S. is neutral on the constitution. But an investigation launched by U.S. congressmen unearthed documents showing how the Obama Administration is funding outside organizations to influence the vote.

This same week, the Obama Administration was caught giving $160 million to Pennsylvania to fund a plan under ObamaCare that will cover any legal abortion in the state. Federal officials claim that, despite what is written in the plan, it will be limited to abortions in the case of rape, incest, and life of the mother.

"We can learn how the Obama Administration will behave in our own country by its actions in Kenya. Despite a federal law banning the government from using foreign aid to lobby for or against abortion, the Administration has given up to $10 million to sway an election that would result in legalizing abortion. If President Obama is sincere in his promise to 'reduce the need for abortions,' then he must stop funding organizations -- internationally and domestically -- that are dedicated to increasing abortions," said Wendy Wright, President of Concerned Women for America.

Concerned Women for America is the nation's largest public policy women's organization.
source:http://news.christiansunite.com/Religion_News/religion09512.shtml

Obama is 'still evil,' say Israeli lawmakers

Tuesday's Oval Office meeting between US President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the subsequent press conference appeared to go well, but right-wing Israeli lawmakers said they remain wary of the American leader.

Obama and Netanyahu discussed, among other things, Iran's nuclear program and the upcoming expiration of Israel's settlement building freeze.

Though it was self-imposed, Netanyahu declared the building freeze under heavy US pressure. The White House hoped the gesture would prompt the Palestinians to return to the negotiating table. That hasn't happened, and many of Netanyahu's ministers and supporters are demanding he let the 10-month freeze expire in September.

During Tuesday's press conference, Obama dodged questions regarding the expiration of the freeze, but did say he believed direct talks between Israel and the Palestinians could only begin during such a freeze, hinting that it must not expire until that goal is reached.

Ayoub Kara, an Israeli Druze deputy minister from Netanyahu's Likud Party, wasn't convinced by what he characterized as Obama's diplomatic charade.

"He doesn’t sound evil now because he needs Jewish votes and money," Kara told The Jerusalem Post. "But I won’t forget the pressure he put on Netanyahu and the stress I saw in the prime minister the last time he came back from Washington. He is acting the way he is for political reasons."

Netanyahu last visited Washington in late May, and was scheduled to meet with Obama at the White House. But the Israeli leader was told to stay away after Israeli commandos intercepted a violent humanitarian aid flotilla trying to break the maritime blockade on the Gaza Strip. Just days earlier, Obama had tacitly supported a Non-Proliferation Treaty summit that ignored Iran's defiant nuclear program and instead demanded Israel submit itself to nuclear inspections.

Another Likud lawmaker, Danny Dannon, said he thinks Obama is finally realizing that he can't man-handle Israel, but cautioned that the president is still misappropriating his focus when it comes to restarting peace talks.

"[Obama] is wrong if he thinks the [settlement building] freeze must continue for direct talks to begin. He instead must pressure the Palestinians to come to the negotiating table, regardless of the freeze," said Dannon. "He sounds nice now but after November, I am worried that he will sound different."

Obama's Democratic Party is in danger of losing control of the two houses of Congress in mid-term elections this fall, and Israelis believe he is playing nice with Israel until then in order to influence the votes of American Jews and Christians who support the Jewish state.
source:http://www.israeltoday.co.il/default.aspx?tabid=178&nid=21471

LaBarbera: Obama 'Gays Down' Fatherhood with Pro-Homosexual Father's Day Proclamation

by Staff
June 22, 2010

MEDIA ADVISORY, (christiansunite.com) -- Americans For Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH) President Peter LaBarbera today condemned President Barack Obama for "gaying down" the noble institution of fatherhood by extolling "nurturing families" with "two fathers" in his Father's Day proclamation.

Obama proclaimed:

Nurturing families come in many forms, and children may be raised by a father and mother, a single father, two fathers, a step father, a grandfather, or caring guardian.

"If an adult man chooses to embrace homosexuality, that's one thing. But two men imposing their homosexual lifestyle on an innocent, impressionable child -- thus intentionally denying that child a mother -- is something quite different. Shame on Obama for 'gaying down' the noble institution of fatherhood to appease his homosexual activist supporters."

Obama is the most pro-homosexual-agenda president in American history, and is currently working to subvert both the legal ban on open homosexuals serving in the military, and the Defense of Marriage Act, which affirms traditional marriage in federal law.

"Who can deny the notorious promiscuity that is rampant in the gay male subculture - and which often continues even after two homosexual men adopt a child," LaBarbera said. "Witness gay parenting's poster-boy, Dan Savage, a sex-advice columnist and author of The Kid: What Happened When My Boyfriend And I Decided to Go Get Pregnant. Savage promotes 'non-monogamy' as an alternative to marital fidelity -- and admits that he his 'husband' twice engaged in sexual 'three-ways' even after they adopted a baby boy. (One wonders who babysat 'the kid' during their homosexual sex romp.)"

Such is the extent of tolerated outside sex in male homosexual relationships that their "negotiated" rules for "nonexclusivity" are studied by academics. "The gay community's normative acceptance of casual sex, anonymous sex and nonmonogamy in couple relationships represents a dramatic departure from heterocentric norms and values," wrote researchers Johnson and Keren in 1996.

"As a gay therapist who has seen hundreds of male couples in a vast range of unconventional, loving, and sustaining relationship configurations -- including monogamy, nonmonogamy, three-partner relationships and more -- I have grown to respect the fluidity and customized relationship forms that can work well for gay men (and potentially for all people)," wrote homosexual therapist Michael Shernoff in 2006.

But even if two homosexual men keep their disordered relationship "faithful," homosexual parenting would not be worthy of celebration, LaBarbera said: "It is wrong to force children into a situation where they have two men modeling immoral behavior -- condemned by God and all major religions -- as the most important role models in their lives."

"Gay parenting is a selfish social experiment whose long-term effect on children has not yet been determined -- biased homosexual-authored studies notwithstanding," he said. "We know that dad-and-mom-led homes are the best for children. That is the timeless brand of fatherhood that Obama should be promoting."
Source:http://news.christiansunite.com/Religion_News/religion09442.shtml

Gaza flotilla deaths can be blamed on Obama

According to a report by World Tribune, the nine deaths that occurred when Israeli commandos stormed the Free Gaza "aid" flotilla that tried to break Israel's maritime blockade of the Hamas-ruled territory last week can be largely blamed on US President Barack Obama.

The paper cited diplomatic sources that revealed Obama had demanded Israel "exercise extreme caution and restraint" and not use traditional non-lethal riot gear against the passengers, even after Israel shared intelligence showing the passenger of the Mavi Marmara were affiliated with a Turkish terror group and likely to offer violent resistance.

Had the Israelis boarded the Mavi Marmara with tear gas and rubber bullets, it is very likely there would have been no fatalities in the confrontation.

Instead, the Israeli commandos carried only paintball guns and pistols. They were quickly overwhelmed by dozens of "peace" activists wielding knives and clubs, and several of the Israelis were taken hostage. The second wave of commandos, understandably fearful that their captured comrades were being lynched or may end up like other abducted Israeli soldiers, quickly requested and received permission to use their sidearms.

In a misguided effort to prevent a violent clash by putting the Israeli commandos and the activists on equal footing, the White House actually set the stage for a far more deadly situation.
source:http://www.israeltoday.co.il/default.aspx?tabid=178&nid=21297

How Obama is using flotilla raid to distance US from Israel

Public condemnation of Israel over its seizure of a terrorist-supported aid flotilla to Gaza has been led by Turkey, where the ships embarked from, and has been loudest in the halls of the UN. But US President Barack Obama, too, has used the incident as a means of further distancing his administration from the Jewish state.

In his public rhetoric, Obama has refrained from condemning Israel outright, though he has leveled veiled criticism, but his actions speak far louder than his words.

The first action that demonstrated whose side Obama was taking in the matter was the canceling of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's visit to the White House scheduled for the day after the flotilla raid took place.

As the news of the raid broke, Netanyahu at first announced that he would remain in the US and finish his North America diplomatic tour, including his meeting with Obama. But just hours later, the Israeli leader abruptly changed his plans and said he would be returning home to "deal with the crisis."

There was no reasonable explanation for canceling the meeting, though Obama and Netanyahu tried to offer some, except for that Obama didn't want Netanyahu to use the White House as a podium from which to explain Israel's position, as that would upset those of Israel's enemies the Obama Administration is trying to make nice with.

Diplomatic sources in Washington and Jerusalem acknowledged as much to the Israeli financial newspaper Globes when they revealed that the Obama team told Netanyahu, "Don't come."

The second way in which Obama discreetly used the flotilla incident to move the US away from its traditional support of Israel was in his handling of the emergency UN Security Council session called in the wake of the confrontation.

Displaying its double standard toward Israel, the UN moved with lightning speed to set up the session and draft a resolution condemning the Jewish state. The UN's Muslim states wanted to get the session underway while Lebanon was still the acting president of the Security Council. Lebanon was scheduled to be replaced by Mexico at 12 PM on the day of the flotilla incident.

In that short space of time, the Security Council met, discussed the matter and unanimously approved a resolution that laid the blame for the almost solely on Israel. In the past, Washington has used various methods to block the Security Council from fast-tracking hostile resolutions against Israel in the aftermath of such incidents.

The Obama Administration also raised no objections when the UN Human Rights Council decided to suddenly amend its procedural rules and hold its first-ever "urgent debate," which naturally concluded with a strong condemnation of Israel.

Israeli observers and the Jewish state's true friends in America noted that while Obama did not produce any direct condemnations himself, it was his actions that enabled the international media and the UN to really skewer Israel. It is difficult to believe Obama didn't know what he was doing.
source:http://www.israeltoday.co.il/default.aspx?tabid=178&nid=21214

Online Poll of Conservatives Shows Strong Opposition to a 3rd Party; 92% Believe Obama is a Socialist or a Marxist

by Staff
May 14, 2010

MANASSAS, Va., (christiansunite.com) -- An Internet poll sponsored by Richard A. Viguerie, Chairman of ConservativeHQ.com, in conjunction with his recent article, "From an old- school conservative, advice for the tea party," online at tinyurl.com/23e7zf5, showed overwhelming opposition to a conversion of the Tea Party movement into a political party.

The poll of 736 respondents showed only 11.8% thought the Tea Party should become a political party.

President Obama is considered to be an extreme left wing radical by almost 92% of the poll respondents, with 46.5% labeling him a Marxist and 45.3% a socialist. Only 4.3% thought he was a liberal.

More than 70% considered themselves part of the Tea Party movement, and an additional 17% were conservatives but did not identify with the Tea Party cause. Eight percent said they were libertarians and 4.5% opted for "none of the above."

Viguerie said the results were significant because it showed conservatives were not interested in splitting their votes.

"Republicans lost three Senate seats in 2008 -- Ted Stevens in Alaska, Norm Coleman in Minnesota, and Gordon Smith in Oregon -- and two seats in 2006 -- Jim Talent in Missouri and Conrad Burns in Montana -- because of conservative third-party candidates. If these five senators were still in office, there probably would have been no Stimulus Bill and no Obamacare. Conservative third parties almost certainly made these liberal legislative victories possible," he said.

In looking back on the Bush Administration and the Republican-controlled Congress, more than 77% said many conservative leaders got too close to the GOP and lost their independence and effectiveness. Only 13.5% disagreed.

The complete results of the poll are online at tinyurl.com/2bggycm

Richard A. Viguerie pioneered political direct mail and has been called "one of the creators of the modern conservative movement" (The Nation magazine) and one of the "conservatives of the century" (Washington Times). He is author of Conservatives Betrayed: How George W. Bush and Other Big Government Republicans Hijacked the Conservative Cause.
source: http://news.christiansunite.com/Religion_News/religion09325.shtml

Obama No Longer Evangelical Left Messiah

by Staff
February 23, 2010

WASHINGTON, (christiansunite.com) -- Late last month, evangelist Tony Campolo, leader of the liberal "Red Letter Christians" movement and professor emeritus at Eastern University, indicated possible buyer's remorse at the presidency of Barack Obama. Reflecting on the health care reform saga, Campolo expressed regret that the President and congressional Democrats haven't promoted alternatives to abortion, especially with respect to the economically disadvantaged.

According to the Daily Caller, Campolo said progressive evangelicals like himself "are angry" at both parties, frustrated with the White House and "still concerned" about abortion.

Campolo is more than a prominent evangelical who happened to support Obama's run for the presidency. He was a dedicated supporter who actively promoted Obama to other evangelical Christians. Campolo's support was not limited to just Obama. With a handful of other progressive evangelical leaders, he served on the Democratic Party's platform committee, helping express the party's policy positions and core convictions.

IRD President Mark Tooley commented:

"Seeking to give cover to evangelicals eager to support Barack Obama's candidacy, Campolo and others insisted that a pro-abortion rights politician would somehow better reduce abortions.

"Like others, Campolo and the evangelical left saw Obama as their Rorschach candidate, and now express frustration that he has been more faithful to his abortion rights voting record than to their fictional portrayal of him.

"Voices on the evangelical left have seemed all too willing to downplay clear Christian moral teaching in order to join Obama's push for bigger government."
source: http://news.christiansunite.com/Religion_News/religion09056.shtml

This is Now the World's Pro-Life March!' International Pro-Life Leaders Come to US Capitol to Protest Aggressive US Anti-Life Policies

by Staff
January 19, 2010

FRONT ROYAL, Va., (christiansunite.com) -- International Pro-Life leaders from Africa, Europe, South America, Asia and Oceania have come to the nation's capitol to stand in solidarity with their American brothers and sisters and protest the radical expansion of anti-life policies under the Obama administration. They will speak at a conference on January 22 at the Washington Court Hotel in Washington, D.C. before joining the hundreds of thousands of other pro-lifers in the March for Life.

"America's March for Life is now the world's March for Life," said Joseph Meaney, Director of International Coordination for Human Life International (HLI). "It has become the world's pro-life protest because of the aggressive promotion of abortion and population control that is now official policy of the United States, thanks to the administration of President Barack Obama."

"This is not only the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, which has led to the destruction of almost 50 million American children," said Dr. Ligaya Acosta, HLI Regional Coordinator for Asia and Oceania. "This is now the anniversary of President Obama's allowing Americans' taxpayer funds to be used to promote abortion and other assaults on life in my own country of the Philippines, in Africa, in China... all over the world where 40 million babies are killed every year. It is wrong and we are here to tell him and Congress to stop paying to kill our children!"

Dr. Acosta was referring to President Obama's January 23rd, 2009 reversal of the Mexico City Policy, which had, under the Reagan and both Bush administrations, restricted the use of federal funds to support any organization that promoted or performed abortion abroad. In December, this reversal allowed Congress to pass an omnibus spending bill, signed by President Obama, which included almost $ 700 million for abortion-promoting organizations internationally.

"We are tired of the arrogant American government trying to tell us how many children we should have," said Emil Hagamu, HLI's regional coordinator for English-speaking Africa. "President Obama is of Kenyan descent. How can he do this to his own people?"

"These aggressive policies are undeniably hurting America's stature with the people of the world, even if they help America appeal to the cruel international elites who want to run everything," said Raymond DeSouza, HLI's coordinator for Portuguese-speaking nations. "When international aid is tied to abortion, it's like holding a nation hostage, telling them that children are bad, which translates into hopelessness for the future. This is a terrible violence against the families and children of the developing world."

Information on HLI's "The Fight for Life Around the World" mini-conference can be found at www.hli.org/index.php/component/content/749? task=view.

HLI's International Regional Coordinators will be available for interviews around the time of the March for Life on January 22.
source: http://news.christiansunite.com/Religion_News/religion08943.shtml

Iran Provokes West with Advanced Missile Test

WASHINGTON -- Iran once again thumbed its nose at the West on Wednesday, testing an upgraded long-range missile that can reach as far as southeastern Europe. It can also hit any target in Israel.

The test comes as the Muslim nation continues its march toward nuclear weapons.

Iran's Stocking Stuffer: A Long Range Missile

Those looking for some encouraging news out of Iran this Christmas season should prepare to be disappointed. The Iranians' latest stocking stuffer for the West is an upgraded version of the long range Sajjil-2 missile.

Iranian military officials boasted that the high-speed, surface-to-surface weapon has radar-evading capability. Its range is 1,200 miles, putting all of Israel and parts of Europe in its cross-hairs.

source: http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2009/December/Iran-Provokes-West-with-Advanced-Missile-Test/

The missile test comes as Western leaders are busy debating climate change in Copenhagen, Denmark.

One of those leaders, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, said the test underscores the need for tougher international sanctions against Iran over its nuclear weapons program. But with Iran's allies, Russia and China, continuing to drag their feet, it's unlikely he'll get them.

The new Sajjil-2's debut came just one day after U.S. lawmakers in the House passed legislation that would impose sanctions on foreign companies that supply refined gas to Tehran.

However, the Iranian regime continues to scoff at the possibility of such sanctions and President Barack Obama's repeated attempts at diplomacy.

U.S. Losing Patience

As the mullahs push full speed ahead with their nuclear program, administration officials admit they're losing patience

"I don't think anyone can doubt that our outreach has produced very little in terms of any type of positive response from the Iranians," Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said.

In recent days, western diplomats have expressed concern that Tehran had been testing a neutron initiator. It's a key element of the nuclear weapons cycle that has no peaceful purpose. So the window for meaningful action against Iran may be closing rapidly.

The U.S. military is currently preparing a missile defense drill that would simulate an Iranian attack.

Meanwhile, leaders in Israel say that all options - including a military strike - remain on the table regarding Iran's nuclear program.

Time for Senator Reid to Decide Who He is: A Pro-Life Senator, or Someone Willing to Play Politics with Human Life

by Staff
December 7, 2009

WASHINGTON, (christiansunite.com) -- Yesterday CNS News published a constituent letter signed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV). In the letter, intended for citizens who voice objections to the inclusion of abortion in the Senate version of health care reform, Reid reaffirms his stated opposition to abortion: "I noted your specific comments related to health care reform and abortion. I oppose abortion except in the cases of rape, incest, and when the life of the mother is at risk." Yet Reid does not assure readers he would support an authentic exclusion of government-funded abortion from health care reform, in the manner of the Stupak amendment that recently passed in the U.S. House of Representatives.

In response, Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser offered the following statement:

"Senator Reid is a man divided. He needs to decide who he is. Is Reid a pro-life Senator, true to his Nevada roots, who will work to protect innocent human life at every turn? Or is he a hardened Washington politico, an inside the Beltway horse- trader willing to make personal compromises for short-term political gain?

"Every day, public servants decide where they are willing to draw a line in the sand, what principles they are willing defend, no matter the cost. Does Senator Reid really believe what he said in that letter? If he truly believes all human life deserves protection, there is simply no room for compromise in health care reform.

"Senator Reid should oppose government-funded abortion in health care reform by supporting the pro- life Stupak language. His constituents deserve it, and America deserves it."

As part of its Votes Have Consequences project, the Susan B. Anthony List has funded $130,000 in television (video), radio ads and educational phone calls across Nevada calling on Senator Reid to defend Life in health care reform. The Susan B. Anthony list plans to renew its ad buys in mid- December.

The Susan B. Anthony List also delivered a letter to Reid signed by 15 pro- life leaders earlier this year, urging the senator to cease calling himself "pro-life" as long has he supports the inclusion of abortion in health care reform.

The Susan B. Anthony List is a nationwide network of Americans, over 167,000 residing in all 50 states, dedicated to mobilizing, advancing, and representing pro-life women in politics. Its connected Candidate Fund increases the percentage of pro-life women in the political process.

source:http://news.christiansunite.com/Religion_News/religion08807.shtml

National Right to Life to Obama and Reid: You Wanted Debate? Now You'll Get Debate - On Government-Funded Abortion

by Staff
November 24, 2009

WASHINGTON, (christiansunite.com) -- The U.S. Senate barely cleared an initial 60- vote procedural hurdle, setting the stage for a 2,074-page health care bill, crafted by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nv.), to move forward to debate before the full Senate. The following statement was issued by the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), the federation of right-to-life organizations in all 50 states, and may be attributed to NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson.

As National Right to Life has previously noted, Senator Reid's bill [on page 118] would authorize the federal government to pay for any and all abortions through a huge new federal health insurance program, the "public option," and also to subsidize purchase of private plans that cover abortion on demand. President Obama and Reid know that the substance of these abortion-promoting policies is deeply unpopular, so they seek to conceal the reality with layers of contorted definitions and money- laundering schemes.

Obama and Reid wanted debate - so now they'll get debate, on their cloaked provisions that would cover abortion on demand in proposed new government-run and government-subsidized insurance plans.

Obama and Reid are seeking to block enactment of the bipartisan Stupak-Pitts compromise, adopted by the U.S. House of Representatives on November 7 by a vote of 240-194. This amendment would prevent government funding of elective abortion through the proposed "public option," and would also prevent federal subsidies from paying for private insurance plans that cover elective abortion.

During the weeks ahead, National Right to Life will continue to fight the efforts of President Obama and congressional Democratic leaders to cover abortion on demand in two huge new federal health programs. The Senate bill faces additional 60-vote hurdles in the future. Moreover, a courageous group of pro-life Democrats in the House of Representatives will oppose final approval of health care legislation if the Stupak-Pitts Amendment is gutted or removed.

For extensive further documentation on the Stupak- Pitts Amendment and other aspects of the issue, visit the NRLC website at www.nrlc.org/ahc.

Both NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson and Senior Legislative Counsel Susan T. Muskett are available to provide further comment and analysis on the Stupak-Pitts Amendment and the abortion provisions in the Reid bill. To arrange an interview, contact the NRLC Communications Department at (202) 626-8825 or (202) 423-3329 (mobile).

The National Right to Life Committee, the nation's largest pro-life group, is a federation of affiliates in all 50 states and 3,000 local chapters nationwide. National Right to Life works through legislation and education to protect those threatened by abortion, infanticide, euthanasia and assisted suicide.

source: http://news.christiansunite.com/Religion_News/religion08771.shtml

Israel: Obama criticism of Jerusalem construction is racist

Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat on Wednesday called US President Barack Obama's strong criticism of the building of additional Jewish homes in a Jewish neighborhood of the Israeli capital a position based on racism.

Said Barkat:

"Israeli law does not discriminate between Jews, Muslims, and Christians or between eastern and western Jerusalem. The demand to halt construction by religion is not legal in the United States or in any other free place in the world. I do not presume that any government would demand to freeze construction in the United States based on race, religion or gender and the attempt to demand it from Jerusalem is a double standard and inconceivable."

The Jerusalem mayor was responding to Obama's remarks to Fox News earlier in the day, in which the president referred to the approval of 900 new apartments in the southern Jerusalem neighborhood of Gilo as "settlement activity," and suggested that it justified further Palestinian violence.

Many Israeli lawmakers publicly agreed with Barkat, including opposition leader Tzipi Livni, who told visiting French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner that "Gilo is part of the Israeli consensus, and that understanding is important for every discussion on the final borders of any future agreement."

Kouchner took a lighter view of the issue than Obama, and told reporters that he didn't feel the construction of additional Jewish apartments in a neighborhood where so many Jews already live should in any way hinder the peace process.

But the Palestinians took their cue from Obama. Chief Palestinian Authority negotiator Saeb Erekat was quick to confirm that the Palestinians, too, view the Jewish presence in Gilo as settlement activity, and do not feel they can make peace with Israel so long as it continues.

Built in 1971, Gilo was a barren hilltop when it was liberated by Israel from illegal Jordanian occupation in the 1967 Six Day War. Today it is home to more than 30,000 Israelis, and an integral part of Jerusalem.

Source: http://www.israeltoday.co.il/default.aspx?tabid=178&nid=20003

Will Obama Confront China on Human Rights Issues?

By Gary Lane
CBN News Chief International Correspondent
Saturday, November 14, 2009
RSS
Podcasts


The latest version of Adobe Flash Player is required to watch this video. Please click on the link below to download the latest version. Thanks!

Embed: Link:
Ad Feedback

China is an economic superpower with the world's fastest growing economy and boasts the world's largest population.

Yet, as China's influence increases, so does international concern about the country's affairs.

China is still a Communist country and the government has little tolerance for those who worship outside official churches.

But what pressure, if any, should the U.S. put on China to guarantee religious freedom?

President Obama will meet with leaders in China next week with the goal of solidifying U.S relations with the country.

Topping the White House agenda for discussion is the global economy, trade, climate change and regional and global security issues-- including terrorism, Iran and North Korea.

Just before Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited China earlier this year, she said human rights would not be a top priority of the Obama administration.

The U.S. still lists China as a country of particular concern for religious freedom.

china aid association president bob fu gives one reason why....

"The government wants to exercise total control of the church and order the church not to exercise their faith, especially to practice their faith by sharing the gospel wherever they are," said Bob Fu of the China Aid Association.

When the State Department released it's annual religious freedom survey last month, Assistant Secretary of State Michael Posner said religious freedom will be part of the U.S.-China dialogue for a long time to come.

He expressed concern for the 50- 90-million Christians who worship in China's unregistered churches.

"What we are trying to do is encourage the Chinese government to recognize and allow people of faith, various faiths, to practice and that's also part of the dialogue as far as I'm concerned," Posner said.

The president may raise human rights and religious freedom issues privately. Also, unlike his predecessor, Obama is not planning to attend a church during his China visit.

source: http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2009/November/Will-Obama-Confront-China-on-Human-Rights-Issues/?_mid=274200&_rid=274200.2004.9732