Tag Archives: President Obama

Maagar Mochot Poll: Israelis oppose Obama imposed deal, division of Jerusalem and relying on American guarantees in deal with Palestinians

By Dr. Aaron Lerner

Israeli Jews overwhelmingly oppose (83%:8%) President Obama imposing a Palestinian-Israeli agreement and also oppose (70%:19%) freezing construction in Jerusalem according to a telephone poll of a representative sample of 503 adult Israeli Jews, by Maagar Mohot Survey Institute (headed by Professor Yitzchak Katz) carried out 11-12 April.

The poll, that was commissioned by Independent Media Review & Analysis (IMRA), also found that respondents believe (69%:13%) that the division of Jerusalem with international control of the Old City would lead to ongoing conflict rather than peace for generations.

Israeli Jews overwhelming (79%:9%) support Prime Minister Binyamin’s
position that Israel must control the Jordan Valley in any arrangements with the Palestinians.

The poll also found consistent rejection of relying on American guarantees in arrangements with the Palestinians. Respondent overwhelmingly (80%:12%) reject the proposal that the U.S. could deliver on a guaranty that a Palestinian state would remain demilitarized. Israeli Jews also reject (69%:22%) the suggestion that Israel could relinquish territories that are today considered critical for its security if the U.S. signed a defense pact with Israel.

Respondents also consider it improper (68%:16%) for Israelis who support plans opposed by Netanyahu to encourage President Obama to impose their plans.

The Obama “Birth Certificate” Scandal Continues

A Newsmax.com story by David A. Patten noted that, contrary to widespread media reports, Hawaiian health officials have not publicly released President Obama’s original, “long-form” birth certificate. He explained, “Many media reports have insisted the President’s actual birth certificate is available on the Internet for anyone to download. It is not.” What is posted, he noted, is Obama’s “certification of live birth.”

Patten said, “The document is essentially a summary of the actual long form birth certificate. The certification does not list the attending physician, the address or hospital where the delivery took place, or the parents’ occupation. Typically, this information is included on the birth certificate.”

A certified birth certificate a state seal stamp on it. The seal prominently displayed by MSNBC anchor Brian Williams was not from Obama’s birth certificate. A good reason not to show a close up of the entire thing.

Cliff Kincaid, the editor of Accuracy in Media, has released a copy of his own birth certificate, in order to demonstrate what needs to be done to resolve the growing controversy over the alleged birth certificate of President Barack Obama. “My birth certificate includes the names of my mother and father, my mother’s doctor, and the hospital in which I was born,” said Kincaid. “This certified copy of an original long form document is what anyone who wants to be president should be prepared to produce.”

By contrast, the “birth certificate” released by the Obama presidential campaign includes no name of a hospital, a location of that hospital, or a physician. “The contrast between what is on so many birth certificates for ordinary Americans, such as mine, versus what the Obama campaign has released, is striking,” said Kincaid. “This contrast is what accounts for the many questions that have arisen and which have given rise to the so-called ‘Birther’ Movement. Many ordinary Americans are wondering why the major media have not explained why the Obama ‘birth certificate’ is so lacking in basic and essential information about where he was born and which doctor by name was there when he was born. If he was born in Hawaii, as he claims, then this information should be readily available and printed on the original birth certificate.”

If Obama has a legitimate birth certificate, why has he spent nearly one million dollars to conceal it from public view? What does he have to hide? Could it be his foreign born status?

As Kincaid asked, “Whatever happened to the public’s right to know?”

Surely, Obama and the Democrat Party leaders are not so contemptuous toward the voting public–or should I say those who voted against him–that they disregard their right to know whether a man holding the highest office satisfies the legal requirements under Constitutional law? Maybe, they sincerely believe all Americans should trust federal bureaucrats. More likely, they believe their presumed authority exceeds that the people and the U.S. Constitution. Tyrants always do.

To read the entire Accuracy in Media Report published on September 2, 2009, go here.

Who’s telling the truth about abortion funding in Health Care Reform Bill?

Cardinal Rigali says the bill does fund abortion and that those who say otherwise are pushing an “illusion.”

President Obama says the bill does not fund abortion and that those who say otherwise are guilty of a “fabrication.”

Who is right and who is wrong?

In a August 20 report, CNCNews compares statements made by and President Obama to answer the question.

Cardinal Rigal Cardinal Rigali laid out his position in a carefully reasoned and detailed argument presented in a pastoral letter sent to the U.S. House of Representatives on August 11. Here is his explanation:

“Because some federal funds are authorized and appropriated by this legislation without passing through the Labor/HHS appropriations bill, they are not covered by the Hyde amendment and other federal provisions that have long prevented federal funding of abortion and of health benefits packages that include abortion. The committee rejected an amendment to extend this longstanding policy to the use of federal subsidies for health care premiums under this Act. Instead the committee created a legal fiction, a paper separation between federal funding and abortion: Federal funds will subsidize the public plan, as well as private health plans that include abortion on demand; but anyone who purchases these plans is required to pay a premium out of his or her own pocket (specified in the Act to be at least $1.00 a month) to cover all abortions beyond those eligible for federal funds under the current Hyde amendment. Thus some will claim that federal taxpayer funds do not support abortion under the Act.

“But this is an illusion. Funds paid into these plans are fungible, and federal taxpayer funds will subsidize the operating budget and provider networks that expand access to abortions.”

President Obama not only disagrees with Cardinal Rigali’s conclusion that the bill funds abortion because it funds abortion providers, but in his short speech to a religious audience on BlogTalkRadio yesterday he said that those who say the bill funds abortion are not telling the truth.

Here is what President Obama said:

“I know there’s been a lot of misinformation in this debate. And there’s some folks out there who are, frankly, bearing false witness.”

“You’ve heard that this is all going to mean government funding of abortion. Not true. This is all–these are all fabrications that have been put out there in order to discourage people from meeting what I consider to be a core ethical and moral obligation. And that is that we look out for one another. That I am my brother’s keeper and my sister’s keeper. And in the wealthiest nation on earth right now, we are neglecting to live up to that call.”

The committee referred to by Cardinal Rigali is the Energy and Commerce Committee. The Health Subcommittee amendment specifically states under 122 (4)(B): ABORTIONS FOR WHICH PUBLIC FUNDING IS ALLOWED.
Who’s telling the truth about abortion funding in Health Care Reform Bill?

“The services described in this subparagraph are abortions for which the expenditure of Federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services is permitted …”

Prior to the above, the amendment says that the public health insurance option “shall provide coverage for services described in paragraph (4)(B). Nothing in this Act shall be construed as preventing the public health insurance option from providing for or prohibiting coverage of services described in paragraph (4)(A). Sub-paragraph (4)(A) says what is not permitted in exactly the same words as in (4)(B).

So what is prohibited? Nothing. Under this amendment, the government can and will provide publicly funded abortion service coverage to all eligible citizens.

The CNSNews report further demonstrates how the New York Times spun the amendment in order to deceive the public. The NYT stated that the Health Care Reform Bill would subsidized health insurance premiums of low-income people, but would not cover abortion services.
Yet, as we saw in the above amendment, it would be covered.

According to CNSNews, low income Americans are not the only ones whose would receive federally subsidized health insurance.

“Under the terms of both the House and Senate bills, it is not only “low income people” who will qualify for federal subsidies to buy insurance, but also people making up to 400% of the poverty level ($88,000 for a family of four). The bill will guarantee all such federally subsidized insurance purchasers the ability to buy an insurance to plan that covers abortions. Therefore, federal money will pay for abortion coverage.”

“To put it more bluntly, this health care bill will take money away from hard-working, decent, pro-life taxpayers and hand it over to insurance providers that pay doctors to kill unborn babies.”

Who then is telling the truth about abortion funding under the Health Care Reform bill? Cardinal Rigali and those like him are telling America the truth. Obama and his religious supporters are not.

Swine Flu Virus Reaches Ohio Via Biological Attack?

The deadly swine flu virus hitched a ride in a 9 year old boy from Lorain, Ohio. The boy had returned from a trip to Mexico with his family. They had traveled all over Mexico including a visit to a farm.

The virus is new strain combined of strains from North America, Europe, and Asia. The unique combination has led some to speculate about the possible biological attach.

Contrary to some spectacular news reporting, the swine flu virus is not new to North America. There have been minor outbreaks of this type of flu since the early 1900s. It is contracted usually by contact with infected pigs or people. As in this case, it was probably spread by birds that inflected pigs that was passed on to humans. This is a more unusual outbreak because it is being widely spread from humans to humans. It is spread by sneezing, coughing, and the like. Therefore, it should be deemed unusual.

Nevertheless, the unanswered question raising speculation that terrorism may be a factor is why is it more severe and deadly in Mexico than in America? Another question not raised is why did it happen around the same time of President Obama’s visit to Mexico?