Jesse Jackson Jr: Suspend the Constitution!

What is wrong with progressive politicians... why do they keep on calling for the suspension of the Constitution? Two weeks ago North Carolina Governor Bev Perdue suggested that the the country might benefit if the 2012 congressional elections were suspended for two years. Of course that would require the elimination of  Article I, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, which calls for congressional elections every two years.




Today the Son of Reverend Hymietown...Illinois Democratic Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. today called for President Obama to suspend the constitution and implement the jobs bill without Congressional approval. Jackson feels that congressional opposition to the American Jobs Act is similar to Confederate “states in rebellion.”

Jackson called for full government employment of the 15 million unemployed and said that Obama should “declare a national emergency” and take “extra-constitutional” action “administratively” — without the approval of Congress — to tackle unemployment.

“I hope the president continues to exercise extraordinary constitutional means, based on the history of Congresses that have been in rebellion in the past,” Jackson said. “He’s looking administratively for ways to advance the causes of the American people, because this Congress is completely dysfunctional.”

“President Obama tends to idealize — and rightfully so — Abraham Lincoln, who looked at states in rebellion and he made a judgment that the government of the United States, while the states are in rebellion, still had an obligation to function,” Jackson told TheDC at his Capitol Hill office on Wednesday.

“On several occasions now, we’ve seen … the Congress is in rebellion, determined, as Abraham Lincoln said, to wreck or ruin at all costs. I believe … in the direct hiring of 15 million unemployed Americans at $40,000 a head, some more than $40,000, some less than $40,000 — that’s a $600 billion stimulus. It could be a five-year program. For another $104 billion, we bailout all of the states … for another $100 billion, we bailout all of the cities,” he said.

Perhaps before the next time he foolishly opens his mouth to speak Jackson Jr should  remember his oath of office:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

For more on the story visit Public Secrets

Iran Terror Plot-Will Obama Miss His 3AM Phone Call?

By Barry Rubin

Remember that Hillary Clinton ad about it being the early morning hours and the phone’s ringing in the White House? Well it’s arrived in real life, and the phone is — or isn’t — going to be answered by Barack Obama. And the question is: What are you going to do about the dramatic announcement of an Iranian plot to attack targets in Washington, D.C.?

True, it’s a bizarre story about Iranian Revolutionary Guards and Mexican drug lords. But, after all, the United States was impelled a step toward entering World War One by the Zimmerman Note in which German agents sought to entice Mexico to go to war against the United States.

Vice President Joe Biden has said that “nothing has been taken off the table” when it comes to the U.S. response. The Saudis, who are famous for keeping a low profile and trying to avoid problems — often through money — are openly livid. They’re basically saying something along the lines of, “We told you so.” They tried and gave up because they didn’t get U.S. or Western help. Will anything change now?

Is This Story True?

There are some points that would make one question this whole garish tale. Most important:

–This does not match past Iranian practice. Many “experts” think this is the clincher, but precedent is not always a reliable guide. Things change. Be careful on this point. But clearly this does not correspond with past Iranian operations that went through either direct agents or trusted Muslim Islamist clients.

–Why should some Iranian-American businessman in Texas be a key Iranian agent? It’s called secret agent work for a reason. A sleeper cell should not be obvious. And he did have a relative in the Revolutionary Guards hierarchy, if the indictment is to be believed, who helped him.

–Why didn’t Iran use its own assets? Again, I think this is a strongest argument against the story. The whole thing is amateurish but more importantly it was Iran’s most sensitive operation ever and the absurdly high danger of exposure was obvious. Even if Iran was going to do this kind of operation, it would have developed these contacts with the Mexicans and not immediately entrusted some drug gang official that one of their guys barely knew.

–What was the Iranian goal? Certainly, Iran has been threatening the United States with dire consequences for a while. But why the sudden decision to escalate? Revenge for sanctions? And what was their plan for concealing Iranian involvement if the attack did happen? One can explain such a change, but one cannot explain it very well. This raises questions, but again is not a definitive answer.

The Administration is telling its favored reporters that the Iranians were desperate (sanctions are biting; Tehran is become more aggressive in Syria to fight the revolution there and in Afghanistan. I don’t buy it. Iran’s operations are designed to spread or protect existing influence among Muslims and not to launch a direct bin Ladin style Jihad on American soil. Again, if the evidence exists I’ll accept it but on an analytical basis it doesn’t compute.

Did the Administration make the whole thing up to protect itself politically? No, it wouldn’t dare since such behavior would eventually be easily exposed and backfire big-time. And besides, if it were going to do such a thing it would invent a free-lance terror plot, not drag the United States into a potential confrontation with Iran, a country that it’s been trying to avoid confrontation with.

(If I had to make a guess–and it is too early to do so–I’d speculate that the Iranian agent(s) involved didn’t have full authorization to organize such attacks but that’s an educated guess. The problem with that theory is that Iranian regime organizations tend to be heavily top-down, Iran is a dictatorship, and the counter-intelligence groups keep an eye on everyone. But even if my theory were to be correct, since the Iranians would never admit it was a rogue operation that wouldn’t save the regime from potential consequences, if any. )

All that’s important is this: If the U.S. government has persuasive evidence that it can present, then it happened. Since the main defendent has turned state’s evidence then he will supply details and we would see that the story is true and the trail does lead back to Iran’s government. BUT if the Obama Administration can make the charges stick that is only the beginning of its problems!

Might This Blow Up in the Obama’s Administration’s Face?

Absolutely yes. If they were fooled by a fabricator, if revealing the case too soon (to stave off criticism of Attorney General Holder over the gun-smuggling case) damaged the chance of success in uncovering the terrorist network, or if the government’s response is not equal to the crisis they’ve developed, then the Obama administration will look worse.

This whole affair is extremely dangerous for the White House. Any idea that this is an easy win for the administration — see how good we are at protecting America — is dead wrong.

I am not arguing and do not believe that they created this plot, but this would not be the first time that U.S. officials have been fooled by Iranians with an agenda to fool them.

What Will the Administration Do about It?

The response is fraught with peril. The immediate reaction — we’ll mobilize world opinion! — makes the administration look buffoonish. If this is true, it is an act of war by Iran, at least by elements in the Iranian government (you know, the kind of people who could one day give nuclear weapons to terrorists).

Response A: Do Nothing

Wow, can you see that in the presidential debates in 2012? An enemy chose to attack the very capital city and the Obama administration could only respond with press releases and Biden growling!

Response B: The “Sunni Strategy”

This really scares me. This administration is quite capable of saying: Iran is the enemy so what we must do is work with our good Muslim friends, you know the Muslim Brotherhood? We need to win over Hamas and Hizballah from Iran by proving we are nice to them. Oh, and we need to work closely with that wonderful Turkish government, like letting them organize the political succession in Syria!

And so on. Do not underestimate the stupidity, incompetence, and ignorance of this administration regarding the Middle East.

Response C: A United Front against Revolutionary Islamism

The U.S. government takes the lead in organizing and supporting Europe, Saudi Arabia, and the Gulf monarchies, Israel, and Jordan into a cooperative alignment. Back the oppositions in Iran, Turkey, and Lebanon. Punish enemies and reward friends. Whatever shortcomings Saudi Arabia has, its leaders have been correct about the Iranian threat and their frustration with Obama’s failure to lead. The Saudis even tried to save Lebanon from Iranian-Syrian domination but gave up when Washington wouldn’t help them.

The point is not to go to war with Iran but to oppose Iranian interests and allies everywhere, including the use of covert operations. Challenge Iranian agents of influence in Lebanon and Iraq. Containment is not just about nuclear weapons for Tehran, but about the spreading influence of that regime and, more broadly, the gains being made by revolutionary Islamists throughout the region.

That also means the United States must seem like a strong and determined leader. It must have very serious credibility. And it will have to identify revolutionary Islamism as the enemy.

Look, this is the Obama administration we are talking about. I don’t think they can do it. Hopefully, the next president can do so. There better be a next president in sight because there are a lot more crises on the way.

As I said at the start, I do not think this is some brilliant maneuver that will end up being to the Obama administration’s advantage. They have either made a huge mistake that’s going to be exposed or presented themselves with a challenge they cannot meet.

Ring! Ring! It’s your telephone, Mr. President.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His book, Israel: An Introduction, will be published by Yale University Press in January. Latest books include The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com
 

Independents To Obama "GET OUT!"

For some reason the IBD/TIPP poll is not reported as often as some of the others, but in my experience they have been amongst the more accurate of political polls. The latest IBD/TIPP report contains bad news for President Obama. By a 51-41% Americans want someone new to run the country.

A more ominous indicator of the President's chances is his standing amongst the Independents.  They were key to getting him elected in 2008, but no they want somebody else to sit in the Oval Office by a margin of  54%-36%.

As you might have expected, the economy is the big issue dragging Obama down. According to the poll, half of Americans give Obama poor or unacceptable marks in creating jobs and economic growth vs. 24% who say he's doing well, with independents its 51%-18% and 33% of them give him an "F" vs. just 2% who give an "A" (the report doesn't mention this but I assume that 2% represents independent voters who just woke up from a 3-year-long coma).

"Independents, the unbiased arbiters, are disappointed. They have been hurt badly with job losses. They don't see the president's policies improving the economy, said Raghavan Mayur, president of TechnoMetrica Market Intelligence, which conducted the poll.

Karlyn Bowman, polling analyst for the conservative American Enterprise Institute, says those numbers are daunting for any candidate, let alone an incumbent.

"He has a 36% rating among independents, 38% among whites. Those numbers have to improve for him to be re-elected," she said.

More than a year after the White House and Democrats declared a "recovery summer," the public has yet to see an improvement. By 42%-16%, people expect economic conditions to get worse over the next six months. Another 39% foresee no change.

Among independents, 48% expect conditions to worsen vs. 12% seeing improvement.

Not all the news is bad for the incumbent President, 70% of Americans "like Obama personally," they just want him out of office so he can have more time on his hands to 'make new friends"

UNPRECEDENTED! Harry Reid Invents New Senate Rule To Prevent Vote on Obama Jobs Bill

 Harry Reid invented a new Senate rule tonight, its called "Because I said so!" 

Minority leader Mitch McConnell only wanted to do what the President asked, force a speedy vote on Obama's Jobs bill. But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a member of the President's party would not allow it to happen and he created a new Senate rule to make it happen. Because he didn't have enough votes for its passage, Reid delayed Senate action on Obama's bill, Instead he scheduled debate and vote on a bill focusing on China's currency manipulation.

The President however, has been ostracizing the Republicans for not passing his class warfare jobs bill even though he cannot get it through the branch of Congress his own party controls. In answer to the President's demands for a vote, Minority McConnell made a "motion to suspend the rules," to allow a vote on the amendments to the China currency bill,one of which was the Jobs bill. These motions require a two-thirds vote so they are almost always defeated. But the vote would have established for the the Country what was really going on, Obama's charges about a GOP delay were nothing but a cynical political move made by a president who cares much more about his failing re-election effort than our failing economy.

Here's where it gets interesting, the Senate has always allowed motions to suspend to be offered (and voted down). In this case however, trying to protect his president, rather than provide transparency to voters Reid broke with precedent and ruled McConnell's motion out of order.

The Senate parliamentarian admitted the move was unprecedented, but of course the the Democratic chair, ruled in favor of Reid. McConnell appealed the ruling, but by a vote of 51 to 48 the majority Democratic party decided,  rather than to allow the vote, which would indicate to the public that they too rejected Obama's bill, to hide from the voters what was actually going on behind the scenes and to allow the President to continue to unfairly single out the GOP.

In one stroke Harry Reid was able to rewrite Senate rules making it even harder than it already is for the minority party to force votes on any amendments, or even discuss them.  This is the Senate, Constitutionally designed to be a deliberative body, but in one fell swoop Harry Reid said no, because he said so.  Should Republicans retake the Senate next year, it's something that could come back to haunt Democrats in a major way.

Senator McConnell took the Senate floor to express his outrage about this unprecedented move:

The Majority Leader in effect has overruled the chair--with a simple majority vote--and established the precedent that even one single motion to suspend, even one, is dilatory. Changing the rules of the Senate...And if you look back at this bill, what we've had in effect is no amendments before cloture, no motions to suspend after cloture, no expression on the part of the minority at all...Now, the fundamental problem here is the majority never likes to take votes. That's the core problem.”

Not quite Senator McConnell, you are being too polite, the core problem is the Majority wants to legislate behind closed doors, just as they did with the original stimulus, just like they did with Obamacare. In their minds it is a great sin if the people who elected them got an honest accounting of what was really happening in the Senate.

Democrats Refuse to Put Jobs Bill on Senate Schedule

Speaking to reporters at the beginning of his Cabinet meeting today, President Obama said he is ready to sign the legislation. Once again he implied that only the GOP was holding his bill up when he called on congressional Republicans to spell out what aspects of his plan they agree with and which they reject.  Perhaps a better idea would be to ask Senate Democrats what they don't like about the bill. After all three weeks after he submitted his Tax and Spend  jobs bill and demanded that it  be passed right away the Senate, which is controlled by the President's party has yet to take up the legislation, truth be told they have yet to take up when they are going to take up the bill.

According to the Atlanta Journal Constitution:

But while the White House will again be calling for action by lawmakers, the first order of business in the Senate this week - that would the Senate which is controlled by the President's own party - will be a measure on China's currency.

Why is Obama's own party delaying the vote on his Jobs bill? Simple they don't have the votes.

At this point, Democrats probably don't have 50 votes for the underlying Obama jobs bill, as Democrats are split for a variety of reasons.

Some Senate Democrats don't like the way the plan is paid for with higher taxes; others don't like higher tax levies on the oil and gas industry as well as other details.

Even NY Senator Chuck Schumer, the most partisan of partisan hacks is indicating some problems with the bill.  At issue is the increased taxes the president wants to impose to fund the bill:

"After [Obama] announced the jobs bill ... he proposed ways of paying for it that are probably not the best way to garner the votes," Schumer said.

"We're looking for better ways," said Schumer, the third-ranking Democrat in the Senate.

Republican leaders in the House had been vocal arguing that now was not the time to raise any taxes. And Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) has said that Democratic senators standing for election won't vote for a tax increase - "even on the wealthiest people."

It seems that the party loyalists are not going for Obama's class war fare, especially those nearing their re-election campaign.  All we know for sure is Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid has promised to bring the bill up for consideration this year, but there is a lot of "this year" left.  And while President Obama is making the GOP his scapegoat, it is the Democrats causing much of the Delay.

Leon Panetta Echos Obama's Anti-Israel Disinformation Campaign

Not every anti-Israel step the Obama administration takes is reflected by policy.  For every "start negotiations with the 1949 Armistice lines" there is disinformation, a falsification of history spewed out by the administration.  The latest example of this falsification of history was presented tonight by new Defense Secretary Leon Panetta.



On his way to meetings with Israeli and Egyptian officials, Panetta warned that Israel is becoming increasingly isolated in the Middle East, and said Israeli leaders must restart negotiations with the Palestinians and work to restore relations with Egypt and Turkey.

In a blunt assessment made as he was traveling to Israel, Panetta said the ongoing upheaval in the Middle East makes it critical for the Israelis to find ways to communicate with other nations in the region in order to have stability.

"There's not much question in my mind that they maintain that (military) edge," Panetta told reporters traveling with him. "But the question you have to ask: Is it enough to maintain a military edge if you're isolating yourself in the diplomatic arena? Real security can only be achieved by both a strong diplomatic effort as well as a strong effort to project your military strength."

Panetta followed up by saying Israel risks eroding its own security if it does not reach out to its neighbors.

"It's pretty clear that at this dramatic time in the Middle East, when there have been so many changes, that it is not a good situation for Israel to become increasingly isolated. And that's what's happening," he said.

If Panetta was interested in the truth rather than just spewing more Obama administration anti-Israel rhetoric he would have mentioned that it was the Palestinian Authority who walked away from talks last October, even after Israeli Prime Minster Netanyahu offered to indefinitely suspend building in Judea and Samaria Communities.

Or if the new Defense Secretary didn't want to look at facts a year old, maybe he could have mentioned that today Israel accepted the quartet's proposal to resume talks with the Palestinians but the Palestinians refused until Israel made concessions to stop adding to existing communities and agreed to return to the 1949 Armistice lines. In other words, give us everything we want and maybe we will talk.  The quartet invitation asked for neither concession.

The Obama administration continues to do whatever it can to demonize Israel, when the truth tells a different story, it is the Palestinian Authority who walked away from talks and it is the Palestinian Authority who continues to reject returning to the table.  And why should they.  The United Nations may give them most of what they want without negotiating.

Another Survey Shows Obama's Deteriorating Jewish Support (and Its not Just Because Of Israel)

Another opinion poll was released reporting s a deterioration of Barack Obama's support in the Jewish Community.  What makes this set of results surprising is the poll was conducted by the American Jewish Committee, a group who's leanings are so liberal,  it chastises more conservative Jewish organizations that criticize Obama's Israel policy. Another surprise in the survey (at lease for those unfamiliar with Jewish voters) is that Israel is just one of the issues driving Jews away from Obama.

For the first time since his inauguration, the annual  AJC poll shows more Jews disapproving of Obama's performance than approving. Approval of Obama’s performance declined to 45 percent, and disapproval rose to 48 percent. Last year's AJC survey reported 51 percent approved, and 44 percent disapproved.

Key areas of  Jewish voter disapproval are the economy (duh), and immigration. Foreign policy is a wash and most Jews approve of  the President's performance with National Security and Energy.As expected, the President's Israel Policy meets with disapproval.

Note: the only people who believe that Jews approve of his policy are members of the Democratic caucuses in either house of Congress, people who work for the DNC, or Obama reelection campaign or members of the National Jewish Democratic Council. Of course the NJDC wouldn't criticize Obama even if he woke up one day and (God forbid) decided to bomb Tel Aviv.

 It would be hard for those folks to deny the objection to Obama and Israel now as the results aren't even close.Do you approve or disapprove of the Obama Administration's handling of U.S. -Israel relations?

Interestingly the Israeli Prime Minster Netanyahu, not a favorite amongst the liberal Jewish Community in the US has a better approval story than Obama.Do you approve or disapprove of the Netanyahu government's handling of Israel-U.S. relations?The poll also asks how they would vote in an Obama election against:

• Romney (Obama 50%, Romney 32%, Neither 16%)

• Perry  (Obama 55%, Perry 25%, Neither 18%)

• Bachmann (Obama 59%, Bachmann 19%, Neither 21%)

A few things to point out, Obama beats each of the above, but in each case his percent of the vote is lower than his 2008 total. Based on the poll Obama's 2012 performance with Jews  depends on who the Republicans put up. It is very early, and actual Jewish support for each of these GOP candidates could be much higher or much lower because Jewish Democrats are not  familiar with the GOP candidates (except for what the mainstream media slanders about them).

In the end this study doesn't show that Obama will lose the Jewish vote in 2012, nor should it.  I would be very surprised if  Obama lost the Jewish vote in 2012. What it does show is the GOP has an opportunity to steal enough  Jewish votes to make a difference in some key states.  The large "none of the above" numbers reflect the possibility that Jewish voters may become so frustrated with the choice of candidates that a big segment of them may stay home. This hurts the Democrats.  Based on historic trends 70-80% of those Jews who stay home will be votes lost to the Democratic candidate.And most important IMHO, is that it kills the argument of many  unfamiliar with Jewish voters.  Israel  is not the only issue that shapes their election picks.

NBC's David Gregory Tries To Get Netanyahu To Create an Obama Commercial

On Today's Meet the Press, Liberal activist/host David Gregory campaigned for President Obama to recover his standing in the Jewish Community. Actually what he tried to do is get Binyamin Netanyahu to say that Obama is as big a friend to Israel as Bush.  When that didn't work he tried to get Bibi to bash Mitt Romney's statement saying criticizing Obama's stance on Israel.  When Netanyahu refused to bite on the first two attempts Gregory tried to get him to say that support of Israel should not be a campaign issue.

As you can see by the partial transcript and video below, Netanyahu dodged Gregory's best attempts at trying to create a sound-bite for an Obama commercial:

DAVID GREGORY, HOST: Back in 2002, you said Israel has had no better friend in the White House than George W. Bush. Would you say the same about President Obama?

ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER BENJAMIN NETANYAHU: They've all been great friends of Israel. You know why?

MR. GREGORY: You said, "No better friend in the White House than George W. Bush."

PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU: When did I say that?

MR. GREGORY: 2002 on this program.

PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU: OK. Well, they keep moving. They keep adding new people to--you know, that's the peculiar thing about our system, the leaders, the leaders keep changing.

MR. GREGORY: So George W. Bush and President Obama are equivalent in your mind.

PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU: God, I'm not going...

MR. GREGORY: I'm asking--no, but I'm asking you a serious question.

PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU: I'm not going to start ranking. I'll tell you what, they're all...

MR. GREGORY: You did rank. But, Prime Minister, you did rank. And you said that America was behind you; and, in fact, this has been a frosty relationship between this administration and your administration. And the reality is that there's politics in this country and a presidential campaign. Just this week, you had Mitt Romney, a Republican, say of Obama that he threw Israel under the bus. Rick Perry described Obama's Middle East policy as naive, arrogant, misguided and dangerous. Do you disagree with those statements?

PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU: David, you're trying to throw me under the bus of American politics. And guess what, I'm not going to be thrown there. So I'll tell you what...

MR. GREGORY: You didn't mind disagreeing with President Clinton's analysis this week about the Middle East.

PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU: Sure.

MR. GREGORY: Do you disagree with these Republican candidates?


PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU: I think the important thing to understand is this, and, and this is the truth about America, Israel enjoys tremendous bipartisan support, tremendous. And, and, and, you know, you just have to walk around the breadth and length of this country, it's--or fly, it's a big country--and everywhere you go, you see this tremendous, tremendous sympathy and affinity for Israel. This is what, I think, is one of the great blessings that Israel has in the, in the 21st century. So--and I think that bipartisan support is expressed by any person who happens to be the president of the United States...

MR. GREGORY: Are you concerned that partisanship is being injected into this?

(if you cannot see video below please click here)

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

NBC News: Working For the re-election of Obama as best they can.

Source: NBC News

Bob Beckel is Either Too Partisan or Too Lazy to Check His Israeli "Settlement" Facts

Whenever I think that Barack Obama has had his worst week ever...he finds a way to make it worse. This week began with more Solyndra revelations tying the failed Solar Panel firm's federal loan to politics directed by the Obama White House and it ended at the United Nations where President Abbas made a disastrous application for a unilateral declaration of Palestinian Statehood, which more than anything was a result of Barack Obama's disastrous Middle East policy.

According to Bob Beckel on Friday's The Five Obama's policies had nothing to do with the UN disaster, nothing to do with the fact that Abbas refuses to negotiate, and nothing to do with the fact that Palestinians refuse to recognize Israel as the Jewish State, its all the fault of the settlements, the settlements, the settlements. To be hones I can't remember if he repeated the words "the settlements" three or four times but Beckel certainly made his point. He also proved that he is either too partisan to admit the truth, or too lazy to research recent  history, but either way he is wrong.

Allow me to explain the facts and for brevity's sake I will start with the Obama Administration.

While the Palestinian's have never accepted Israeli settlements, secession of all settlement building has never been a precondition to talks. Israel had long ago agreed not to build new communities  in Judea and Samaria but would continue to add housing units to existing communities.

During the government of PM Ehud Barak, there were direct talks and construction continued in existing communities.

It was the Obama administration's naiveté that made the settlements an issue. Hillary Clinton first demanded the freeze in 2009 and was quickly backed up by Obama. What the President and his advisers perceived as a minor concession (a settlement freeze including no new housing units in existing communities) was for Israel a grave sacrifice. From their point of view Obama was telling Adult Israelis that their children could no longer live near their parents. He was also saying that a policy not accepted in the United States (allowing people of a certain faith to live anywhere they want) was OK as long as it appeased the Arab world.

It is interesting that the man who pushed for Muslims to build a mosque on Ground Zero, and for Illegal immigrants to live in Arizona, believes that Jews should be banned from living on the West Bank of the Jordan River.

Making the Settlement a cornerstone of the new administration's Middle East policy, was a major naivete-driven error by the Obama administration which was compounded by their inclusion of Jerusalem in the mix and their constant public berating of the Jewish State. This turned the Israeli population against Obama, especially the Israeli left who would be more inclined to support a settlement freeze demand. A May 2011 Smith Poll conducted for the Jerusalem Post showed that only 12% of Israelis believe Obama is pro-Israel, 40% believe he is pro-Palestinian.

Obama's demand for a freeze of natural community growth broke a US/Israel agreement made during the Bush administration.

Obama, through his Secretary of State Ms Clinton, said there was never an agreement between Israel and the US about natural expansion of existing settlements. Elliot Abrams who negotiated the agreement for the United States says that the Administration is lying.

Immediately the Palestinians seized upon the Obama-created issue. Seeing an opportunity to avoid talking, they used Obama’s demands to make a settlement freeze a precondition to further talks, even though there were negotiations and construction going on simultaneously before Obama became president.

In August 2009 Prime Minister Netanyahu announced a ten month settlement building freeze in Judea and Samaria. It was approved by the Knesset and implemented on November 25, 2009 and ran till September 25, 2010. Despite pressure from the United States, the Palestinians wasted the first 9  months of the freeze and would not come to the negotiation table till September 2010, three weeks before the freeze ended. A fact lost on Mr. Beckel.

After the freeze ended, Abbas once again hid behind Obama's naivete, another fact that Beckel forgets. With the end of the freeze pressure was put on Jewish State to extend it indefinitely.  No one questioned the Palestinian Authority’s refusal talk for the first nine months of a ten month freeze.

The US began to negotiate with the Israel to extend the freeze. And the two sides came close to a deal. Based on their experience with Obama and the deal negotiated by Elliot Abrams during the Bush Administration, Israel demanded that any proposal be presented in writing as any oral deal with the Obama administration was worth the paper it was printed on.

The written offer never came and worse yet, the Secretary of State wasn’t negotiating in good faith. Instead Ms Clinton was playing "Bait and Switch."

As Israel waited for a letter clarifying America's guarantees in exchange for a proposed building ban for Jewish residents of Judea and Samaria, a diplomatic source has come forward saying that no such letter is on its way. United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton misled Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, and contrary to reports, the U.S. did not guarantee an end to the freeze, the source said.

The source, a senior diplomat with inside knowledge of Netanyahu's recent meetings in Washington, said Clinton made commitments when talking to Netanyahu, but later slipped out of them by claiming that she had not been speaking on behalf of U.S. President Obama – who, she said in the end, did not give his approval.

Despite the Obama administration's bait and switch, Netanyahu tried to give the Palestinian side an "out." In early October 2010 he made a very simple offer to the PA.  If you were to recognize Israel as the Jewish State, we will extend the freeze.  As reported by Al Jazeera the answer was a resounding no:

Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, has offered to renew a partial settlement construction freeze in exchange for Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state. 

He announced the offer on Monday, just three days after the Palestinians and Arab states gave the US a month to persuade Israel to renew a 10-month moratorium on settlement housing starts that expired on September 26.

Netanyahu's proposal met with swift rejection from senior Palestinian officials.

"The whole world holds Netanyahu responsible for what is happening in the region, after he chose to push ahead with the settlement project at the expense of an advance in the peace process. Settlement freeze is a commitment Netanyahu should respect," Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator, told Al Jazeera.

Yasser Abed Rabbo, a senior official of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation, described the settlement issue as "an aggression on Palestinian rights and land".

"What Israel calls itself is an Israeli matter that does not concern us. The two issues are not related," he told Al Jazeera in reference to Netanyahu's condition that Palestinians recognise Israel as a Jewish state.

Nabil Abu Rudainah, the spokesman for Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, said a return to peace talks required a freeze on settlement building by Israel.

"The issue of the Jewishness of the state has nothing to do with the matter," he told the Reuters news agency.

The Palestinian side still refuses to take that first step toward peace, recognizing the Jewish  State of Israel. And while Barack Obama was willing to destroy the prospects for negotiations by making the settlements an issue the way it never had before, he has avoided upsetting the Palestinians by demanding that they recognize the Jewish State of Israel.  Something Obama tap danced around the issue as recently as his speech in front of the General Assembly last week. Those, Mr. Beckel is what are called facts.

Its not just Bob Beckel, he is just the most annoying. The real story of a settlement freeze has been ignored by the mainstream media, Earlier this week Gretchen Carlson of Fox and Friends reported that the Administration was trying to get Israel to return to the table, despite the fact that Israel never left the table, the Palestinians did. Israel offered a ten month freeze to help the US out of a problem caused by our President's naiveté, the Palestinians ignored the freeze until it was too late, an extension of the freeze was first sabotaged by Hilary Clinton's bait and switch tactics and a refusal to put things in writing, then by PA President Abbas because he didn't want to recognize Israel.

Whether Beckel is ignoring the truth because he desperately wants to turn around the progressive Obama's fortunes, or because he is too lazy to investigate the truth it doesn't really matter.What matters is that there is a dearth of truth coming out of the main stream media, even on Fox News. I guess bias and or/laziness is bipartisan.

Barack Obama's Bridge To Nowhere

The Barack Obama "Re-elect me because I offered a jobs bill that even my own party hates" tour continued today with a trip to the Brent Spence Bridge. No the POTUS wasn't threatening to jump because the public doesn't like his class warfare-inspired tax provisions, nor was he threatening to jump because voters trust the GOP more than Democrats regarding the economy. He wasn't even threatening to kill himself rather than be subjected to Nancy Grace in a low-cut dress on Dancing With The Stars ever again. Thank Goodness he wasn't even threatening to kill himself at all (although the Nancy Grace thing was pretty compelling).

This President visited the bridge because he was trying to make a point, partially to the voters but mostly to the Republican leadership. The Trent Spence Bridge rises above the Ohio River and spans John Boehner's home state of Ohio and Mitch McConnel's home state of Kentucky. Obama was trying to tell these Republicans that he could go over their heads and directly to their constituents at any time and through the power of the Presidential "Bully Pulpit" he can make their lives very difficult.

What Obama doesn't understand is that he has used the "Bully Pulpit" so many times that, just like the Trent Spence Bridge, it is functionally obsolete. In the two states, his trip was seen as just another staged re-election event and a bit of a parody of itself.

The 50-year-old, 830-foot bridge is well past its prime and Obama supposedly used it as a way to showcase why Congress should back his "tax and spend" $450 billion dollar job plan which includes infrastructure spending.

But here is the part of the visit that really gives it the "Obama touch." According to the Cincinnati Enquirer this bridge might not get any of the money from the infrastructure plan even in the unlikely event that the bill gets passed. But that may be a good thing because a project to modernize this bridge would not be shovel ready, even by the President's standards.

The bill itself contains no mention of the Brent Spence bridge, or any other specific projects. Even if the bill is passed, it's not clear funding included in the bill for stimulus or the creation of a national infrastructure bank would ever reach the bridge.

That's because if the point of the jobs bill is to create jobs now, then the Brent Spence Bridge may make a nice backdrop for a speech, but it's not the best example of a shovel-ready project.

According to highway officials in Ohio and Kentucky, the bridge is still in the preliminary engineering and environmental clearance phase. In a best case scenario, the earliest that workers would be hired would be in 2013, but more likely 2015.

This trip is just another Barack Obama political stunt. It's what he has been doing non-stop since he became a candidate for the office he now holds.

If he was truly serious about creating jobs, he would be in Washington right now, rolling up his sleeves and sitting down with Congressional leaders. But that is not what this president does, he is the pitchman, he does not know how to be a leader or an executive, he only knows how to campaign. That is why he took a photo-op today, near a bridge that probably won't get any money until at least 2015--a bridge trip to nowhere.

If he was trying to impress GOP leaders, he didn't. If he was trying to impress voters, he didn't. Perhaps the only person he impressed was DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Keep in mind though, impressing her is no big accomplishment, the DNC chair has proven many times over that she will buy any piece of political guano the President tosses her way.

Hopefully by the time this bridge is ready to begin its rehabilitation in 2015, the Republican jobs bill would be entering its third year. You know that bill, its the one where we create jobs by voting Barack Obama out of his.

Obama's UN Speech Continues His Disastrous Israel Policy

They say a leopard doesn't change his spots, well neither does this President.  Those who though that the NY-9 election and recent polls would cause Obama to temper his one-sided policy regarding the Israeli/Palestinian dispute were very disappointing. It's not what he said that should be alarming to friends of Israel, its what he didn't say, namely that Israel needed to be recognized as the Jewish State.  Oh he flirted around it sometimes, but carefully negotiated around stating it, an act of appeasement to those who would destroy Israel. It is that one recognition which keeps this 40 year dispute alive (remember before 1967 Judea, Samaria were part of Jordan and Gaza was part of Egypt).

This is what the President actually said about recognition of Israel at the UN Today.

Let us be honest with ourselves: Israel is surrounded by neighbors that have waged repeated wars against it. Israel’s citizens have been killed by rockets fired at their houses and suicide bombs on their buses. Israel’s children come of age knowing that throughout the region, other children are taught to hate them. Israel, a small country of less than eight million people, look out at a world where leaders of much larger nations threaten to wipe it off of the map. The Jewish people carry the burden of centuries of exile and persecution, and fresh memories of knowing that six million people were killed simply because of who they are. Those are facts. They cannot be denied.

The Jewish people have forged a successful state in their historic homeland. Israel deserves recognition. It deserves normal relations with its neighbors.

Some will say "see he talked about the Jewish people, you can assume that's what he meant." Sadly in diplomacy as well as "Odd Couple" reruns, when you assume you make an ass of u and me.

The avoidance of calling Israel the Jewish State was no accident. As recently as last month the President of the Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas declared that he would never accept Israel as a Jewish State

For the naysayers who say why should the PA have to recognize the nature of the Israel. One reason is  the UN who defines it that way. The original partition resolution passed by the UN in November 1947,  UN Resolution 181 calls for dividing Palestine into Independent Arab and Jewish States. 

Israeli Prime Minister outlined it brilliantly in his speech before Congress at the end of May. He talked about how Israel has been ready to establish a Palestinian State for decades, but there has been one hold-up.

“You see, our conflict has never been about the establishment of a Palestinian state. It has always been about the existence of the Jewish state. This is what this conflict is about....

They were simply unwilling to end the conflict. And I regret to say this: They continue to educate their children to hate. They continue to name public squares after terrorists. And worst of all, they continue to perpetuate the fantasy that Israel will one day be flooded by the descendants of Palestinian refugees.”

My friends, this must come to an end. President Abbas must do what I have done. I stood before my people, and I told you it wasn’t easy for me, and I said… "I will accept a Palestinian state." It is time for President Abbas to stand before his people and say… "I will accept a Jewish state."

A few days before Netanyahu made his speech in the halls of Congress, President Obama gave his big Mid East peace speech. He spent much time telling Israel what she had to do, and included the controversial call for negotiations to start with recognition of Israel's return to the 1949 Armistice lines,  but  he didn’t address the fact that neither Palestinian President Abbas’ Fatah party and the Hamas party refuse to recognize Israel as the Jewish State. 

Today in front of the UN General Assembly he made the same mistake.  

I put forward a new basis for negotiations in May of this year.  That basis is clear.  It’s well known to all of us here.  Israelis must know that any agreement provides assurances for their security.  Palestinians deserve to know the territorial basis of their state.

....We seek a future where Palestinians live in a sovereign state of their own, with no limit to what they can achieve.  There’s no question that the Palestinians have seen that vision delayed for too long.  It is precisely because we believe so strongly in the aspirations of the Palestinian people that America has invested so much time and so much effort in the building of a Palestinian state, and the negotiations that can deliver a Palestinian state.

 Again he fails to mention that the reason it has taken so long is the Palestinian refusal to accept the fact that the Jewish State of Israel has the basic right to exist. The simple truth is that with seven words, President Abbas can get what he wants "We Accept a Jewish State of Israel." Once he says that all the other issues will become much easier.

But President Abbas will not make that declaration, and President Obama is satisfied with making demands of Israel while refusing to demand that the Palestinian side make the most basic of statements. Israel cannot negotiate with someone who does not believe that it should exist.  And President Obama will never regain the trust of voters who support Israel as long as he continues to appease the Palestinians lack of this basic recognition.

Goodnight Irene! Hello Obama?

When I shut down on Friday night, all forecasts predicted the world would end on Saturday thanks to hurricane Irene. Thankfully they were wrong.

Last night my eyes were glued to the weather channel and the "french doors" that led outside from my family room in anticipation of the coming apocalypse. At least I was told it would be an apocalypse, after all president Obama cut his trip short for this.  This is the man who refused to cut his trip short to show some leadership, an area begging for a leader, but he came home for Irene which seemed to be handled well without him, by governors, FEMA and of course Michael Bloomberg, Mayor of NY. Heck this is the kind of operation where Bloomberg thrives, he just loves to control every aspect of people's lives, so ordering an evacuation of low lying areas give him almost as much joy as when he tells people what they can or cannot eat. There is even a rumor that when using the restroom in a NYC facility, there is a recording of the Mayor reminding people to flush and wash their hands (some even say it's not a recording, but Bloomberg making live announcements).

But not Obama, he likes other people to do his dirty work.  He hates soiling his Presidential fingers. For the President to come home for Irene, there must be something the media wasn't telling us, something severe like giant salt shakers, super-sized burgers or some other unhealthy food hiding somewhere in the storm clouds, there was no other reason why the President would come home for a hurricane while he ignored our ongoing economic crisis.

Just around midnight the wind began to whip up and what had been a light rain became a downpour.  I began to ignore the TV to concentrate on what was happening outside.  The trees seemed to be doing a synchronized dance, bending and moving their arm-like branches in unison.

The wind began to make fierce noises as it pushed around the trees. My dog ran out of the room and into the kitchen, as if she was trying to get away from any window. Just about then we lost power. Both the inside and outside became pitch dark and I pressed my face against the windows of the "french doors," looking for whatever that hidden calamity which drew the president home early from vacation to arrive.

I must have passed out around 1 am, but since the power was out I couldn't really tell.  At 8 am, I woke from my deep slumber and looked out the window.  The backyard was covered  with tree branches, the pool was overflowing with water and leaves,  the rain was coming down hard but not as hard as it had been, and the wind was whipping through the trees.

Within the hour the eye of the hurricane passed over Far Rockaway, a part of Queens NY about 30 miles west of my house. What I never saw was the giant salt shaker, hamburger,  other unhealthy food or any other reason why the President would come home for this hurricane which was under control, while he ignored the economy which is spinning out of control.

The Weather Channel is declaring that all danger to Long Island has largely passed. Irene, now a tropical storm is doing damage to northern NY State and Connecticut.  But I don't believe them.  There must be something else coming from Irene.  Why else would Obama come back from vacation?

Manufacturing Execs Give WH Chief of Staff Daley Hell Over Obama's Anti-Business Policies

“I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell.” Harry S. Truman

The thirty-third president's words never rang more true than at yesterday's meeting of the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM). White House Chief of Staff Bill Daley was the "guest of honor." It was part of the President's effort to  make-nice session with corporate America before the election so he can gain their support for his campaign, get re-elected and then continue to crap all over private enterprise if he has a second term.

But this was not a friendly outreach session as Daley was confronted by angry executives who see their businesses heading downhill thanks to the administration's anti business policies.

Daley didn’t have any good answers for many of the questions blaming the business owners problems on “bureaucratic stuff that’s hard to defend.Sometimes you can’t defend the indefensible.”

One by one the Chief of Staff faced criticism from the executives in the room, who applauded each others criticism of the administration

“At one point, the room erupted in applause when Massachusetts utility executive Doug Starrett, his voice shaking with emotion, accused the administration of blocking construction on one of his facilities to protect fish, saying government ‘throws sad into the gears of progress,’” said the Washington Post report.

Americans for Limited Government Communications Director and former Labor Department Public Affairs Chief of Staff Rick Manning  pointed out that Daley’s meeting may have large political implications.

“Business community to William Daley, your Jedi tricks don’t work on us,” Manning said in an email. “The chickens are coming home to roost from the wholesale assault by Obama on the free enterprise system and the private job creators who make it run. The meeting itself is incredible in that it demonstrates just how vulnerable Obama feels in 2012.”

Daley tried to lay out the administration’s efforts to help business, and  promoted Obama’s support for changing the corporate tax structure and for new free trade agreements.

When a paper company executive said Environmental Protection Agency regulations might cost her $10 million to $15 million to upgrade a mill, Daley said the number of rules and regulations “that come out of agencies is overwhelming.”

Later, he added: “We’re trying to bring some rationality to it.”

Daley’s appearance before Thursday’s meeting of the National Association of Manufacturers was an unusual public appearance for Obama’s relatively new chief of staff. He invited the executives to offer candid views and extended the question-and-answer session, at one point joking, “I’ll probably regret saying that.”

I am sure that he did.

On lowering the corporate tax rate, a top goal of business groups, Daley said again, “there are winners and losers.” He warned that some small businesses might face a tax increase.

Mary Andringa, head of NAM, described the meeting as “constructive” and was “quite pleased” that Daley devoted more than an hour to the group’s concerns.

But some business executives in the room said they were unimpressed by the White House’s attempts to woo industry.

“We think there’s a thin facade by the administration to say the right things, but they don’t come close to doing things,” said Barney T. Bishop III, chief executive of the business group Associated Industries of Florida. He called the efforts to streamline regulations “immaterial.”

“We love the platitudes, but we want to see action,” Bishop said.

And that's the bottom line for these executives.  Before they invest more in their businesses, and hire more people, they need to feel sure that the economic environment is going to get better. Unfortunately as the Obama administration's policies stand right now...that is unlikely to happen anytime soon.

Top Black Democrat Declares Opposition to Obama Based on Race

On Wednesday, the Commerce Department announced that durable goods orders dropped 3.6 percent, worse than economists’ expectations for a 2.2 percent fall. They also announced that driven by the lack of buyers, the price of new homes continued to deflate. Thursday, it was announced that weekly first-time unemployment claims rose to 424,000 (in February that number was 375,000 — lower, but still very high).

If you believe Congressman James Clyburn (D-SC), corporations stopped buying durable goods, home buyers put their plans on hold, and people quit their jobs on purpose — all to make the president look bad. Why would they want to do that?

Racism of course.

Clyburn didn’t say it directly, but he certainly implied as much in this interview with McClatchy Newspapers. The House minority whip declared the cause of President Obama’s problems is racism.

This post was written exclusively for Pajamas Media,  I would really appreciate it if you clicked here to read the rest of it at the PJM site

America: Once A Leader- Now Brags About Being A Follower

By Barry Rubin

I'll bet your mother said to you at least once: "If all your friends jumped off a cliff would you do it also?"

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's statement on Libya reminded me of that kind of admonition:

"I would point out that Europe led the way in our response on Libya, and they were fully supported by the Arab League. So with respect to Libya, the United States is very willing to be part of this coalition, and we have contributed a great deal. But it was concern from Arab leaders and European leaders at the United Nations that really moved us forward with respect to Libya."

This is a very unusual U.S. government. It is eager to show that it isn't a leader. The underlying belief is that America must prove it isn't a bully so that the rest of the world will love it. What's important, however, is that in international affairs the strong are criticized but also get respect.

There is a strain in American political culture, from the founders, of not wanting to be too pushy in international affairs. At times in history this could shade off into isolationism, though that's pretty unlikely in today's world. Before the United States entered World War One, there was a slogan explaining that policy: Too proud to fight.

What the assassination of Usama bin Ladin proved is that America can get things done when it wants to do so. And also that it can act alone when necessary. It is less proof of President Barack Obama's brilliance and courage than it is of America's ability.

The question that must be foremost is whether a given action is in U.S. interests NOT whether it polishes the U.S. image. A willingness to be unpopular at times is a necessity for any country that wants to survive and prosper.

Just because the Arab League says it's ok is not a sufficient criterion for U.S. foreign policy to do something.

To be fair, I understand that this isn't precisely what Clinton is saying. I'm sure she would add that the intervention in Libya is in U.S. interests. But I still don't think that's true.

Moreover, this argument about what everyone else does becomes the rationale for not doing more about Iran or Syria. And one fears it will shape mistakes yet to come.


Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com. 

Shale Energy Could Solve America's Energy Problems

In the famous scene from the movie "The Graduate" the character played by Dustin Hoffman is trying to make his way through a party thrown in his honor to celebrate his graduation from college. One of his parent's friends pulls him aside to give him advice for the future, "Ben" he says, "I have one word for you, plastics!"

If the movie was produced today that one word might very well be two words, Shale Energy. Shale gas and could solve this country's energy problems.  And what makes it even more valuable is that there is an ample supply of it in the United States (if our president would let us mine it).

Recent technology breakthroughs have made shale gas extraction cheap, and clean.

It had long been assumed that natural gas could only be extracted when, like oil, it had accumulated in underground reservoirs. But a far greater quantity of gas from organic residues is trapped in the rock itself, and the technology has now been developed to extract it by pumping in water mixed with salt and other chemicals at very high pressure. The advantages are enormous. Not only is it a remarkably cheap source of energy, but since most of the process takes place underground, its “environmental footprint” is minimal – far less than that of oil wells or open-cast coal mines, let alone those useless windfarms.

So miraculous is the potential of shale gas to change the world that several countries, led by the US and China, are already piling in to exploit it on a huge scale. And an admirable introduction to this energy revolution by Matt Ridley has just been published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, available online under the title The Shale Gas Shock, with a delightful foreword by the world-famous physicist (and “climate sceptic”) Freeman Dyson.

Ridley lucidly explains how and why shale gas is transforming the world’s energy prospects, and reviews the various objections which have been raised to it by environmentalists, to whom it is anathema. They hate it to the point of hysteria because it offers the prospect of a cheap and abundant fossil-fuel that could keep industrial civilisation going for hundreds of years, and is also, according to their prejudices, environmentally friendly, because its CO2 emissions are much less than those of coal or oil.

There are also major supplies of shale gas in Europe and in Israel. Yet in both the EU and United States, environmentalists have the upper hand and are preventing shale oil exploration.

One of the first actions the Obama team took when it assumed office in was to direct Secretary of the Interior Salazar to cancel 77 shale oil and gas leases in Utah. The next year they canceled 61 onshore leases in Montana. TheGreen River shale formation in Utah, Wyoming, and Colorado, has an estimated 800 billion barrels of oil, which is three times the proven reserves of Saudi Arabia. Federal law prohibits drilling for most of these resources. In the Bakken oil shale formation in the Dakotas, there are an estimated 20 billion barrels of oil.

In the Marcellus shale formation in West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and New York, there
could be as much as 500 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, the largest natural gas field in
the world.

Number three in shale energy holdings is  Israel, they have developed technology to make shale oil drilling even cheaper and cleaner,  this will be used for Israel to extract its vast shale oil resources.


The British-based World Energy Council reported in November 2010 that Israel had oil shale from which it is possible to extract the equivalent of 4 billion barrels of oil. Yet these numbers are currently undergoing a major revision internationally.

A new assessment was released late last year by Dr. Yuval Bartov, chief geologist for Israel Energy Initiatives, at the yearly symposium of the prestigious Colorado School of Mines. He presented data that our oil shale reserves are actually the equivalent of 250 billion barrels (that compares with 260 billion barrels in the proven reserves of Saudi Arabia). 

Independent oil industry analysts have been carefully looking at the shale, and have not refuted these findings. As a consequence of these new estimates, we may emerge as the third largest deposit of oil shale, after the US and China.

Israeli scientists have found a way to produce shale energy, and water in the same process.

Yet new technologies, being developed for Israeli shale, seek to separate the oil from the shale rock 300 meters underground; these techniques actually produce water, rather than use it up.

The technology will be tested in a pilot project followed by a demonstration stage. It will be critical to demonstrate that the underground separation of oil from shale is environmentally sound before going to full-scale production. The present goal is to produce commercial quantities of shale oil by the end of the decade.

If the energy industry was allowed to fully exploit our shale reserves, not only would it bring down the price of Energy, create Jobs, help cut the federal deficit, and eliminate our dependence on foreign reserves. 

Bringing down the price of energy and cutting our dependence on foreign reserves will also help the US in the war on terror as some of the money spent on OPEC oil gets transferred to the hand of terrorists in the Arab world.

Exploiting our shale reserves is a win-win for America, but sadly the President and his progressive friends are determined to turn America way from fossil fuels whether it makes sense or not, and that determination is more important to the progressives than the future well-being of the United States.

Newsbusted: Democrats Abandoning Obama Because of High Gas Prices

Those four dollar/gallon gas prices getting you down? No body is complaining about those high gas prices more than the Liberal/Progressives in the Democratic party, but for surprising reasons.  Some are even projecting that it may cause Obama to lose his reelection bid. To understand the reasons why, just watch the video below as Anchor Jodi Miller gives all the details in today's installment of Newsbusted the twice-weekly feature from Newsbusters.org,

Other stories covered in today's report are why some fear that 2012 will be the most racist election in history,  why Elliot Spitzer thinks there is no such thing as objectivity in news reporting, and a celebration of Jay Leno's 61st birthday.

This episode of Newsbusted is the the funniest two and a half minutes seen on the internet, since the White House tried to come up with a new version of the Bin Laden raid.

Please don't let yourself miss this issue of  Newsbusted.  Because should you miss it, the Department of Defense will conduct the next terrorist's burial at sea in your bathtub (with you in it). Click play below and remember, this is going to hurt the liberals much more than you.

Oh, and if you cannot see video below click here