Thursday, July 7, 2011
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Easily Deceived Jewish Voters
Our last post was regarding a poll that showed Jewish support of Obama had slipped. However, the following post is the other side of the issue. Major donors are "re-assured" by the presentation. Are they stupid or gullible? The answer is that they have been so indoctrinated that if Hitler would run as a Democrat, they would vote for him.
Now, I know that will upset some of my Jewish friends, however, in my not so humble opinion, Obama is not much different. He is not a supporter of Israel and will demand that Israel do things that will not be in their best interests. If they do not do as he desires, he will drop the hammer which may include things like the ending of all financial and military support. This would dangerously impact the safety of Israel.
Ironically, the population of Israel is just short of 6 million. Interesting number, huh? Source is http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/jewpop.html With Arab leaders and others denying the Holocaust, can we be heading to another one? If Israel is denied support by the United States, would it encourage its enemies to attack or to nuke? If so, at whose lap would be the resulting deaths be laid?
Here is the post:
Here is the post:
Redacted from article by CAROLINE B. GLICK
June 24, 2011
Just before Obama snowballed his Jewish donors in Washington, Yale engaged in a similarly transparent bid to romance its Jewish supporters. This week we have been witness to two transparent attempts to sell liberal American Jews a bill of goods. And from the looks of things, both were successful.
The first instance of liberal American Jewish credulity this week unfolded in Washington. At a five-star hotel, eighty Jewish donors shelled out between $25,000-35,800 to attend a fundraiser with US President Barack Obama.
The second instance Yale University launched new program on anti-Semitism after Jews decry Yale closing anti-Semitism study center.
As has become his habit, Obama opened his remarks by talking about his commitment to Israel’s security. And as has become his habit, Obama went on to say that it is his job to force Israelis to bow to his demands because he knows what is best for Israel. Speaking of his ongoing efforts to force Israel to concede its right to defensible borders before entering into negotiations with the Hamas-Fatah unity government, Obama said, “There are going to be moments over the course of the next six months or the next 12 months or the next 24 months in which there may be tactical disagreements [between the US and Israel] in terms of how we approach these difficult problems.”
Obama went on to say that he expects his American Jewish supporters to take his side in his attacks on Israel. As he put it, the quest for peace between Israel and the Hamas-Fatah government is “going to require that not only this administration employs all of its creative powers to try to bring about peace in the region, but it’s also going to require all of you as engaged citizens of the United States who are friends of Israel making sure…that you’re helping to shape how both Americans and Israelis think about the opportunities and challenges.”
And how did the Jewish donors respond to Obama’s presentation? They loved it. They were, in the words of Obama donor Marilyn Victor, “re-assured.” Speaking with Politico, New York businessman, Jack Bendheim said, “I think he nailed and re-nailed his commitment to the security of the State of Israel.” Other attendees interviewed in the article echoed his sentiments. Imagine how they would have swooned if Obama had confessed a secret love for bagels and lox.
What does Obama have to do for these liberal American Jews to accept that he is no friend of Israel’s? Apparently the answer is that there is nothing Obama can do that will convince his many American Jewish supporters that he is not Israel’s friend. They will never believe such a thing because doing so will require them to choose between two unacceptable options. The first option is to admit to themselves that in voting for Obama, they are voting against Israel.
Just hours before Obama snowballed his Jewish donors in Washington, Yale University engaged in a similarly transparent bid to romance its willfully gullible Jewish supporters. Yale University’s announcement two weeks ago that it was shutting down the Yale Initiative for the Interdisciplinary Study of Anti-Semitism (YIISA) unleashed a storm of protest. Students, faculty, alumni and major Jewish organizations all expressed anger and disappointment with Yale’s surprise move.
Yale justified its decision on the basis of two falsehoods. First it claimed that YIISA had failed to undertake sufficient top quality scholarship. Yet in the wake of the announcement dozens of leading scholars of anti-Semitism co-signed a letter authored by Prof. Alvin Rosenfeld, who directs Indiana University’s Institute for the Study of Contemporary Anti-Semitism, praising the YIISA as “a pioneer in advancing research on contemporary manifestations of anti-Semitism.”
The second reason that Yale claimed it was closing YIISA was because there was insufficient faculty and student interest in its programs. This falsehood was ridiculous on its face since several dozen Yale faculty members served on YIISA’s various academic committees and boards of advisers.
The main suspicion provoked by Yale’s decision to close YIISA was that it was doing so to appease Islamic critics. YIISA’s Director Prof. Charles Small focused its attention on contemporary forms of anti-Semitism. Since the most dangerous form of contemporary anti-Semitism is Islamic anti-Semitism, Small made Islamic anti-SemitismYIISA in order to end campus research and discourse on the topic.
Monday Yale tried to quell the controversy surrounding its decision to close YIISA by announcing that it was forming a new institute called the Yale Program for the Study of Anti-Semitism. Yale announced that its tenured professor Maurice Samuels will serve as director of the program. Samuels is a scholar of French literature. In his acceptance announcement Samuels addressed Yale’s critics promising that, “YPSA will discuss both contemporary anti-Semitism and historical anti-Semitism.” He also said that in the coming year YPSA will hold a major conference on the topic of French anti-Semitism. Samuels’ statement is notable for two reasons.
First, if it is true, then the only difference between YPSA and YIISA is the director. And the only thing Yale was really interested in doing was firing Small. To offset criticism of its transparent move, Yale has been waging a whispering campaign against Small. Yale administrators have been insinuating that because the university did not hire him as a regular member of the Yale faculty that Small is not an academic, or somehow not good enough for Yale. But Small was in fact, on the Yale faculty. He was a lecturer in the Political Science department and ran one of Yale’s post-doctorate and graduate studies fellowship programs. Despite his intensive work building YIISA, Small taught a heavy course load.
Their willingness to support Yale’s bid to curtail research and discussion of Islamic Jew-hatred and allow Yale to scapegoat Small demonstrates an affliction common to liberal American Jews today. It is the same affliction that makes them unable to countenance voting for a Republican.
That affliction is class snobbery. By insinuating that Small is not up to Yale’s academic standards, Yale was able to rally the Jewish members of its larger community by appealing to their snobbery. The fact that Yale didn’t mind Small serving as a dissertation advisor to its doctoral candidates is immaterial. The facts be damned.
The same Ivy League snobbery that makes it socially unacceptable to vote for a Republican – and certainly not for a Sarah Palin or Michele Bachmann despite their deep-seated and consistent support for Israel – is what allowed Yale to get away with ending its study of Islamic anti-Semitism by besmirching Small’s academic achievements and good name. Remove him from the club, and you end opposition to his academically unjustifiable firing.
The great circus master P.T. Barnum said famously that there is a sucker born every minute. Liberal American Jews aren’t born suckers. They become suckers out of their own free will.
June 24, 2011
Just before Obama snowballed his Jewish donors in Washington, Yale engaged in a similarly transparent bid to romance its Jewish supporters. This week we have been witness to two transparent attempts to sell liberal American Jews a bill of goods. And from the looks of things, both were successful.
The first instance of liberal American Jewish credulity this week unfolded in Washington. At a five-star hotel, eighty Jewish donors shelled out between $25,000-35,800 to attend a fundraiser with US President Barack Obama.
The second instance Yale University launched new program on anti-Semitism after Jews decry Yale closing anti-Semitism study center.
As has become his habit, Obama opened his remarks by talking about his commitment to Israel’s security. And as has become his habit, Obama went on to say that it is his job to force Israelis to bow to his demands because he knows what is best for Israel. Speaking of his ongoing efforts to force Israel to concede its right to defensible borders before entering into negotiations with the Hamas-Fatah unity government, Obama said, “There are going to be moments over the course of the next six months or the next 12 months or the next 24 months in which there may be tactical disagreements [between the US and Israel] in terms of how we approach these difficult problems.”
Obama went on to say that he expects his American Jewish supporters to take his side in his attacks on Israel. As he put it, the quest for peace between Israel and the Hamas-Fatah government is “going to require that not only this administration employs all of its creative powers to try to bring about peace in the region, but it’s also going to require all of you as engaged citizens of the United States who are friends of Israel making sure…that you’re helping to shape how both Americans and Israelis think about the opportunities and challenges.”
And how did the Jewish donors respond to Obama’s presentation? They loved it. They were, in the words of Obama donor Marilyn Victor, “re-assured.” Speaking with Politico, New York businessman, Jack Bendheim said, “I think he nailed and re-nailed his commitment to the security of the State of Israel.” Other attendees interviewed in the article echoed his sentiments. Imagine how they would have swooned if Obama had confessed a secret love for bagels and lox.
What does Obama have to do for these liberal American Jews to accept that he is no friend of Israel’s? Apparently the answer is that there is nothing Obama can do that will convince his many American Jewish supporters that he is not Israel’s friend. They will never believe such a thing because doing so will require them to choose between two unacceptable options. The first option is to admit to themselves that in voting for Obama, they are voting against Israel.
Just hours before Obama snowballed his Jewish donors in Washington, Yale University engaged in a similarly transparent bid to romance its willfully gullible Jewish supporters. Yale University’s announcement two weeks ago that it was shutting down the Yale Initiative for the Interdisciplinary Study of Anti-Semitism (YIISA) unleashed a storm of protest. Students, faculty, alumni and major Jewish organizations all expressed anger and disappointment with Yale’s surprise move.
Yale justified its decision on the basis of two falsehoods. First it claimed that YIISA had failed to undertake sufficient top quality scholarship. Yet in the wake of the announcement dozens of leading scholars of anti-Semitism co-signed a letter authored by Prof. Alvin Rosenfeld, who directs Indiana University’s Institute for the Study of Contemporary Anti-Semitism, praising the YIISA as “a pioneer in advancing research on contemporary manifestations of anti-Semitism.”
The second reason that Yale claimed it was closing YIISA was because there was insufficient faculty and student interest in its programs. This falsehood was ridiculous on its face since several dozen Yale faculty members served on YIISA’s various academic committees and boards of advisers.
The main suspicion provoked by Yale’s decision to close YIISA was that it was doing so to appease Islamic critics. YIISA’s Director Prof. Charles Small focused its attention on contemporary forms of anti-Semitism. Since the most dangerous form of contemporary anti-Semitism is Islamic anti-Semitism, Small made Islamic anti-SemitismYIISA in order to end campus research and discourse on the topic.
Monday Yale tried to quell the controversy surrounding its decision to close YIISA by announcing that it was forming a new institute called the Yale Program for the Study of Anti-Semitism. Yale announced that its tenured professor Maurice Samuels will serve as director of the program. Samuels is a scholar of French literature. In his acceptance announcement Samuels addressed Yale’s critics promising that, “YPSA will discuss both contemporary anti-Semitism and historical anti-Semitism.” He also said that in the coming year YPSA will hold a major conference on the topic of French anti-Semitism. Samuels’ statement is notable for two reasons.
First, if it is true, then the only difference between YPSA and YIISA is the director. And the only thing Yale was really interested in doing was firing Small. To offset criticism of its transparent move, Yale has been waging a whispering campaign against Small. Yale administrators have been insinuating that because the university did not hire him as a regular member of the Yale faculty that Small is not an academic, or somehow not good enough for Yale. But Small was in fact, on the Yale faculty. He was a lecturer in the Political Science department and ran one of Yale’s post-doctorate and graduate studies fellowship programs. Despite his intensive work building YIISA, Small taught a heavy course load.
Their willingness to support Yale’s bid to curtail research and discussion of Islamic Jew-hatred and allow Yale to scapegoat Small demonstrates an affliction common to liberal American Jews today. It is the same affliction that makes them unable to countenance voting for a Republican.
That affliction is class snobbery. By insinuating that Small is not up to Yale’s academic standards, Yale was able to rally the Jewish members of its larger community by appealing to their snobbery. The fact that Yale didn’t mind Small serving as a dissertation advisor to its doctoral candidates is immaterial. The facts be damned.
The same Ivy League snobbery that makes it socially unacceptable to vote for a Republican – and certainly not for a Sarah Palin or Michele Bachmann despite their deep-seated and consistent support for Israel – is what allowed Yale to get away with ending its study of Islamic anti-Semitism by besmirching Small’s academic achievements and good name. Remove him from the club, and you end opposition to his academically unjustifiable firing.
The great circus master P.T. Barnum said famously that there is a sucker born every minute. Liberal American Jews aren’t born suckers. They become suckers out of their own free will.
Survey Says Obama In Trouble Over Israel
One of the most dependable Democratic voting blocks might be weakening over President Obama's Israel proposals. Dick Morris recently did a survey of Jewish voters and the President's support has slipped decidedly. One can only wonder if the Presidential campaign will make him change his views.
The commitment by Jews to the Democratic party is a mystery to many who do not agree with them. Why would a group give all their votes to one party year after year? By doing so, it eliminates any power they might have. It allows the Democrats to ignore their concerns due to the fact that they are going to get the Jewish vote regardless of how the party treats their issues.
Israel is one of those issues. Will Jewish voters really vote for a Republican instead of Obama due to his stance on Israel. The poll indicates that might happen, I have my doubts. I guess time will tell.
Below is the report, tell us what you think.
OBAMA LOSING JEWISH VOTERS
By DICK MORRIS
Published on TheHill.com on July 5, 2011
Printer-Friendly Version
If the election were held today, President Obama would get only 56 percent of the Jewish vote against a generic Republican candidate, down from the 78 percent he won in 2008 and less than the 74 percent John Kerry received in 2004.
This is the key finding of a survey of 1,000 Jewish voters I conducted from June 20-27 using telephone and Internet interviews. After asking basic questions of the entire sample, I proceeded to drill down with more detailed questions for the Jews in the sample who identified themselves as Democrats. The overall survey has a 95 percent confidence of a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percent.
Triggering the increasing Jewish disaffection with Obama is opposition to his proposal that an Israeli return to '67 borders be the starting point of peace negotiations. By 10-83, Jewish voters opposed the plan. Jewish Democrats opposed it by 10-67. Asked if President Obama is "too biased against Israel," Jewish voters as a whole agreed with the charge by 39-30, while 32 percent of Jewish Democrats also agreed (and 40 percent of Jewish Democrats disagreed).
Jews who identified themselves as Democrats also said:
• By 37-47, they do not think Obama is "doing a good job of promoting peace in the Middle East."
• By 43-42, they break evenly on whether Obama "is being too tough on Israel."
• By 61-30, Jewish Democrats think the president "is naïve in thinking that he can make peace with the Arabs."
The survey probed the issue of 1967 borders in greater depth, reading Jewish Democrats a statement giving both sides of the issue:
President Obama says that Israel should give up the land it occupied after the 1967 war except for some adjustments. He says that these borders would give the Palestinians a viable nation of their own and would lead to a settlement of their conflict with Israel. Others disagree, saying that these borders are too small, exposing Israel to shelling from the Golan Heights in the north and giving the nation a middle only nine miles wide. They say that returning to the pre-'67 borders would not stop the Arabs from wanting to destroy Israel but would make it easier to do so. Which view comes closest to your own?
In response, Jewish Democrats opposed returning to the '67 borders by 82-8.
Israel is very important to Jewish Democrats.
• By 86-4, Jewish Democrats agree that "it is very important that Jews have a country of their own, considering their history of persecution."
• They disagree, by 9-75, with the idea that "Israel has become a bully, pushing its Arab neighbors around."
• Jewish Democrats agree, by a margin of 85-4, that "Israel is a small country surrounded by countries and peoples that want to destroy it."
• By an overwhelming 12-71, they reject the idea that "Israel is intolerant of its neighbors and does not do enough to get along with them in peace".
• By 79-4, Jewish Democrats agree that "Israel wants to live in peace with its neighbors but the Arabs won't let it" and reject, by 11-73, the statement that "Israel is always trying to grab more land and throw out the Palestinians who live there."
• Finally, Jewish Democrats agree, 67-13, with the overview that "if the Arabs lay down their weapons, there would be no more war. It is just their desire to destroy Israel that creates the conflict."
Given the importance of Israel to the Jewish Democratic voters of the United States, it is clear that Obama is playing with fire as he toughens the American foreign policy toward Israel and banks his credibility on the idea that peace is possible simply through Israeli territorial concessions. American Jews -- Democrats included -- reject the very foundation of Obama's efforts to achieve peace in the Middle East as "naïve."
Obama is in the process of breaking the close relationship between his party and the Jewish community, a liaison first formed by Eleanor and Franklin Roosevelt in the 1930s. In increasing numbers, American Jews and Jewish Democrats are leaving the president's side.
The commitment by Jews to the Democratic party is a mystery to many who do not agree with them. Why would a group give all their votes to one party year after year? By doing so, it eliminates any power they might have. It allows the Democrats to ignore their concerns due to the fact that they are going to get the Jewish vote regardless of how the party treats their issues.
Israel is one of those issues. Will Jewish voters really vote for a Republican instead of Obama due to his stance on Israel. The poll indicates that might happen, I have my doubts. I guess time will tell.
Below is the report, tell us what you think.
OBAMA LOSING JEWISH VOTERS
By DICK MORRIS
Published on TheHill.com on July 5, 2011
Printer-Friendly Version
If the election were held today, President Obama would get only 56 percent of the Jewish vote against a generic Republican candidate, down from the 78 percent he won in 2008 and less than the 74 percent John Kerry received in 2004.
This is the key finding of a survey of 1,000 Jewish voters I conducted from June 20-27 using telephone and Internet interviews. After asking basic questions of the entire sample, I proceeded to drill down with more detailed questions for the Jews in the sample who identified themselves as Democrats. The overall survey has a 95 percent confidence of a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percent.
Triggering the increasing Jewish disaffection with Obama is opposition to his proposal that an Israeli return to '67 borders be the starting point of peace negotiations. By 10-83, Jewish voters opposed the plan. Jewish Democrats opposed it by 10-67. Asked if President Obama is "too biased against Israel," Jewish voters as a whole agreed with the charge by 39-30, while 32 percent of Jewish Democrats also agreed (and 40 percent of Jewish Democrats disagreed).
Jews who identified themselves as Democrats also said:
• By 37-47, they do not think Obama is "doing a good job of promoting peace in the Middle East."
• By 43-42, they break evenly on whether Obama "is being too tough on Israel."
• By 61-30, Jewish Democrats think the president "is naïve in thinking that he can make peace with the Arabs."
The survey probed the issue of 1967 borders in greater depth, reading Jewish Democrats a statement giving both sides of the issue:
President Obama says that Israel should give up the land it occupied after the 1967 war except for some adjustments. He says that these borders would give the Palestinians a viable nation of their own and would lead to a settlement of their conflict with Israel. Others disagree, saying that these borders are too small, exposing Israel to shelling from the Golan Heights in the north and giving the nation a middle only nine miles wide. They say that returning to the pre-'67 borders would not stop the Arabs from wanting to destroy Israel but would make it easier to do so. Which view comes closest to your own?
In response, Jewish Democrats opposed returning to the '67 borders by 82-8.
Israel is very important to Jewish Democrats.
• By 86-4, Jewish Democrats agree that "it is very important that Jews have a country of their own, considering their history of persecution."
• They disagree, by 9-75, with the idea that "Israel has become a bully, pushing its Arab neighbors around."
• Jewish Democrats agree, by a margin of 85-4, that "Israel is a small country surrounded by countries and peoples that want to destroy it."
• By an overwhelming 12-71, they reject the idea that "Israel is intolerant of its neighbors and does not do enough to get along with them in peace".
• By 79-4, Jewish Democrats agree that "Israel wants to live in peace with its neighbors but the Arabs won't let it" and reject, by 11-73, the statement that "Israel is always trying to grab more land and throw out the Palestinians who live there."
• Finally, Jewish Democrats agree, 67-13, with the overview that "if the Arabs lay down their weapons, there would be no more war. It is just their desire to destroy Israel that creates the conflict."
Given the importance of Israel to the Jewish Democratic voters of the United States, it is clear that Obama is playing with fire as he toughens the American foreign policy toward Israel and banks his credibility on the idea that peace is possible simply through Israeli territorial concessions. American Jews -- Democrats included -- reject the very foundation of Obama's efforts to achieve peace in the Middle East as "naïve."
Obama is in the process of breaking the close relationship between his party and the Jewish community, a liaison first formed by Eleanor and Franklin Roosevelt in the 1930s. In increasing numbers, American Jews and Jewish Democrats are leaving the president's side.
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
Quakers Want Companies To Not Invest Or Do Business With Israel
The craziness continues to grow! The quiet Quakers are now trying to get companies to divest their investments in companies that do business with Israel. They along with the Presbyterian Church are trying to enforce their opinions regarding the Palestinian issue by using the same technique that was successfully used against South Africa.
It is amazing to me to see these religious organizations being taken in by the misinformation or shall we say propaganda that is constantly being the PLO and their Hamas co-conspirators. For example, have you seen the new hotels that are being erected in Gaza? Check out this site:http://www.tripadvisor.com/Hotels-g660378-West_Bank_and_Gaza-Hotels.html and you will see something that is not seen on the nightly news.
The normal blather on the news is that both Gaza and the West Bank are slums of tent cities and filth everywhere. I think this site blows that idea away.
I would imagine that some of those in leadership of the Quakers and Presbyterian Church have not been to Israel, Gaza or the West Bank. If they had, I doubt that they would have promoted this miscarriage.
One can only hope that saner heads will prevail.
A prominent national Quaker organization has joined a campaign urging a large retirement fund to divest its holding in companies it says profit from Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories.
The American Friends Service Committee (AFSC), a Nobel Peace Prize-winning Quaker group, announced its support of the “We Divest from Israel's Occupation” campaign, which has significant Jewish support.
The campaign asks TIAA-CREF, one of the world's largest retirement funds and manager of AFSC's employee accounts, to divest from companies including Caterpillar, Motorola, Elbit, Veolia, and Northrop Grumman.
Jewish Voice for Peace, which supports the campaign, said in a statement:
“This is the first time a client of the fund has joined the divestment campaign, standing with campaign leaders Jewish Voice for Peace and the more than 40 organizations who have already signed on, including Jewish, Christian, and secular organizations from across the country and Israel/Palestine.”
The AFSC board said they were joining the campaign “as a matter of conscience and an expression of our unwillingness to remain complicit with violence and oppression occurring daily in Palestine and Israel, which is contrary to all that we know to be true and right.”
In a letter to TIAA-CREF, Arlene Kelly, chair of the AFSC's board of directors, said the board “urges you to refrain from investing in any company that contributes to perpetuating the Israeli military occupation of the Gaza Strip, West Bank, and East Jerusalem, provides products or services to Israeli settlements, or provides products or services that enable violent acts that target civilians.”
John K.S. Wilson, TIAA-CREF's director of corporate governance, wrote back that the fund is “unable to alter our investment policy” in response to the AFSC's concerns.
“We are unable to create custom-made funds, which in essence would require all CREF participants to subsidize the cost of a fund that only a small percentage of clients might access.”
It is amazing to me to see these religious organizations being taken in by the misinformation or shall we say propaganda that is constantly being the PLO and their Hamas co-conspirators. For example, have you seen the new hotels that are being erected in Gaza? Check out this site:http://www.tripadvisor.com/Hotels-g660378-West_Bank_and_Gaza-Hotels.html and you will see something that is not seen on the nightly news.
The normal blather on the news is that both Gaza and the West Bank are slums of tent cities and filth everywhere. I think this site blows that idea away.
I would imagine that some of those in leadership of the Quakers and Presbyterian Church have not been to Israel, Gaza or the West Bank. If they had, I doubt that they would have promoted this miscarriage.
One can only hope that saner heads will prevail.
Quakers Now Targeting Israel Via Investments
Newsmax Staffers - Newsmax, July 3rd, 2011A prominent national Quaker organization has joined a campaign urging a large retirement fund to divest its holding in companies it says profit from Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories. The American Friends Service Committee (AFSC), a Nobel Peace Prize-winning Quaker group, announced its support of the “We Divest from Israel's Occupation” campaign, which has significant Jewish support.
The campaign asks TIAA-CREF, one of the world's largest retirement funds and manager of AFSC's employee accounts, to divest from companies including Caterpillar, Motorola, Elbit, Veolia, and Northrop Grumman.
Jewish Voice for Peace, which supports the campaign, said in a statement:
“This is the first time a client of the fund has joined the divestment campaign, standing with campaign leaders Jewish Voice for Peace and the more than 40 organizations who have already signed on, including Jewish, Christian, and secular organizations from across the country and Israel/Palestine.”
The AFSC board said they were joining the campaign “as a matter of conscience and an expression of our unwillingness to remain complicit with violence and oppression occurring daily in Palestine and Israel, which is contrary to all that we know to be true and right.”
In a letter to TIAA-CREF, Arlene Kelly, chair of the AFSC's board of directors, said the board “urges you to refrain from investing in any company that contributes to perpetuating the Israeli military occupation of the Gaza Strip, West Bank, and East Jerusalem, provides products or services to Israeli settlements, or provides products or services that enable violent acts that target civilians.”
John K.S. Wilson, TIAA-CREF's director of corporate governance, wrote back that the fund is “unable to alter our investment policy” in response to the AFSC's concerns.
“We are unable to create custom-made funds, which in essence would require all CREF participants to subsidize the cost of a fund that only a small percentage of clients might access.”
Sunday, July 3, 2011
No Guts in Washington
Why is Washington so afraid of cutting spending? Why are they so unwilling to do the right thing? Why is no understanding that if we continue to spend like we have been doing, it will end the national life we have known. It will mean the end of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, those sacred cows, if we do not act. Why is there no willingness to cut programs which we can no longer afford? I really do not understand.
If you lost your job, would you keep spending like you had before or would you trim your expenses, get rid of those unnecessary expenditures? The operative question would be, "Do I really need this?"
Most of us would rid ourselves of those things we could live without. We would sell the boat, the second home, the toys that we had accumulated when things were going well. Why will Washington not do the same?
Are we heading the same place as Greece? Riots in the streets, major cuts in benefits and discontent among all the citizens being the hallmark of the day. Can it happen here? Will our debt be controlled by other countries who will dictate term and rates?
The answers to all the questions are that it can happen here as our Representatives, Senators and President do not have the intestinal fortitude to come up with real answers to the problems we are facing. They all are interested (it is their only goal) to get re-elected and a representative cannot get another term in Washington if they are cutting benefits to their constituents. When line items are reduced, someone gets hurt. And those deprived of funds will not vote for those who hurt them. So, until our representatives decide they want to save the country (and not their careers), we will get the same mealy mouth answers to our problems.
The debt limit "crisis" is only one symptom of the ongoing disagreement between both sides of the aisle. No one wants to give an inch as it will be seen as weakness. So we approach the August 2 "deadline" to extend the debt limit, it appears as is there is less and less interest in making an agreement.
When August 2 comes and nothing has been done, will our economy collapse? Not right away as there is plenty money to pay our troops and the debt interest for while, however, there will come a future date when it will be time to pay the piper.
Will the inevitable happen in a week, a month, five years? Your guess is as good as mine, however, our belief is that it will be sooner rather than later. It is my hope that our representatives will have a moment of clarity and realize that things have to change and will take actions to do so. Until then gridlock will be the message of the day. That is not the way we should be running our government.
What do you think?
Here is an article posted on The Hill's Blog Briefing Room today. Wisconsin's Governor Walker was interviewed and his opinions are somewhat similar to mine and we thought you might be interested. Here is the post:
If you lost your job, would you keep spending like you had before or would you trim your expenses, get rid of those unnecessary expenditures? The operative question would be, "Do I really need this?"
Most of us would rid ourselves of those things we could live without. We would sell the boat, the second home, the toys that we had accumulated when things were going well. Why will Washington not do the same?
Are we heading the same place as Greece? Riots in the streets, major cuts in benefits and discontent among all the citizens being the hallmark of the day. Can it happen here? Will our debt be controlled by other countries who will dictate term and rates?
The answers to all the questions are that it can happen here as our Representatives, Senators and President do not have the intestinal fortitude to come up with real answers to the problems we are facing. They all are interested (it is their only goal) to get re-elected and a representative cannot get another term in Washington if they are cutting benefits to their constituents. When line items are reduced, someone gets hurt. And those deprived of funds will not vote for those who hurt them. So, until our representatives decide they want to save the country (and not their careers), we will get the same mealy mouth answers to our problems.
The debt limit "crisis" is only one symptom of the ongoing disagreement between both sides of the aisle. No one wants to give an inch as it will be seen as weakness. So we approach the August 2 "deadline" to extend the debt limit, it appears as is there is less and less interest in making an agreement.
When August 2 comes and nothing has been done, will our economy collapse? Not right away as there is plenty money to pay our troops and the debt interest for while, however, there will come a future date when it will be time to pay the piper.
Will the inevitable happen in a week, a month, five years? Your guess is as good as mine, however, our belief is that it will be sooner rather than later. It is my hope that our representatives will have a moment of clarity and realize that things have to change and will take actions to do so. Until then gridlock will be the message of the day. That is not the way we should be running our government.
What do you think?
Here is an article posted on The Hill's Blog Briefing Room today. Wisconsin's Governor Walker was interviewed and his opinions are somewhat similar to mine and we thought you might be interested. Here is the post:
Gov. Walker: 'Not a lot of courage' in Washington to cut spending
- 07/03/11 12:00 PM ET
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) called Sunday for Congress and the president to show “courage” in debt negotiations and push for structural changes to the budget as part of any agreement to raise the country’s debt ceiling.
“If they fail to do something in response to this debt ceiling limit to structurally change where they're headed, we're in real trouble with the economy,” said Walker on CBS News’ Face the Nation.
Walker pointed to the Wisconsin budget he signed June 26 which plugged the state’s $3 billion shortfall with spending cuts as an example to Washington.
“We can turn it around state by state. We can turn it around jurisdiction by jurisdiction, but we need a federal government that's competent. And right now, there's not a lot of courage in the Beltway. We need it. We see it in our states. We see it in our cities. We need to have it in Washington.”
Negotiations to extend the country’s debt ceiling limit before an August 2 deadline have hit a stalemate with Democrats calling for a final agreement to include tax revenue increases and Republicans opposed to such measures.
Gov. Walker signed his first budget for Wisconsin last Sunday. The two-year $66 billion budget covers the state’s shortfall with spending cuts including $1.85 billion in reduced funding for public schools and the state’s university system.
“If they fail to do something in response to this debt ceiling limit to structurally change where they're headed, we're in real trouble with the economy,” said Walker on CBS News’ Face the Nation.
“We can turn it around state by state. We can turn it around jurisdiction by jurisdiction, but we need a federal government that's competent. And right now, there's not a lot of courage in the Beltway. We need it. We see it in our states. We see it in our cities. We need to have it in Washington.”
Negotiations to extend the country’s debt ceiling limit before an August 2 deadline have hit a stalemate with Democrats calling for a final agreement to include tax revenue increases and Republicans opposed to such measures.
Gov. Walker signed his first budget for Wisconsin last Sunday. The two-year $66 billion budget covers the state’s shortfall with spending cuts including $1.85 billion in reduced funding for public schools and the state’s university system.