Charles Freeman
Mary Robinson
Samantha Power
Chuck Hagel

They share something else, too: their views on Israel.

Charles Freeman, president of the Saudi-funded Middle East Policy Council (MEPC), is an apologist for the Saudi regime and a harsh critic of Israel. As a sample of his thought, he regards Israel as a colonial power, whose "occupation" of Arab land "is inherently violence." He blamed terrorist attacks in Britain, Thailand, India and other countries on "the continuing injustices and crimes against humanity in the Holy Land." He withdrew from an appointment to head the National Intelligence Council after coming under criticism for his record.

Mary Robinson is the former United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights whom Obama honored with the Presidential Medal of Freedom even though she was, in the words of Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, “the poster-child for the anti-Israel bias that pervades the United Nations system. Her lack of leadership at the time of the 2001 Durban conference allowed anti-Israel and anti-Western forces to hijack the conference and turn it into a hate-fest against Israel.

Samantha Power is one of Pres. Obama’s top foreign policy advisors, currently serving as senior director for multilateral affairs for the National Security Council. She is a fierce critic of Israel who argues, like Walt and Mearsheimer, that “special interests” have distorted U.S. policy in the Middle East in the past, skewing it toward Israel. She implied that President Bush sent U.S. troops into Iraq because of Israeli, not American interests.

Chuck Hagel, the former Republican Senator from Nebraska, has been named co-chair of the President's Intelligence Advisory Board. Hagel’s record on Israel and Middle East is worrisome. He has downplayed the importance of fighting terrorism (writing that Pres. Bush should have met with Yassir Arafat). In a meeting with Israel supporters in New York, Hagel was challenged for not being sufficiently supportive of Israel. His response was: “I'm a United States Senator. I'm not an Israeli senator. I'm a United States Senator.”

When you look at these individuals – and others close to Obama – you begin to sense a pattern. It’s possible to connect the dots – and the resulting picture is not pretty, or reassuring for supporters of a strong U.S. and a safe Israel. It is not our intent to imply that all of the Obama administration’s foreign policy appointees are anti-Israel, merely to note that there are those who have a troubling record of anti-Israel views, and they are embraced and welcomed by this administration.

Although I did not vote for you, I wrote you a very warm email congratulating you on your victory. I told all of my conservative friends that I owed you the benefit of the doubt.

My disagreements with you were political, not personal. I am a conservative Republican, and you are a liberal Democrat. Yet I never disliked you as a human being.

If you do not believe me, feel free to read my blog. In fact, recommend it to your conservative friends. I could use the traffic, and if you truly are as bipartisan as you claim, then you have conservative friends.

I am writing this letter because of something your wife said awhile ago. She said that your election would help "fix America's broken soul."

Mr. President, it has become clear that it is your soul that is on the verge of breaking.

You must stop demonizing people simply because they disagree with you. It is not just bad politics. It is bad for humanity.

I don't expect you to change your views on healthcare or other policy issues. Yet you must change your tone.

I have told my fellow conservatives that I truly believed that you were a good and decent man, a good husband and father who loves his country.

Yet if you love America, you have to love what makes America great. What makes America great is the American people.

When I wake up in the morning, I think of what I can do to improve America. Sometimes my vision of how to do this conflicts with yours. That does not make either one of us evil.

You have spent far too much time criticizing your predecessor, despite the fact that he has been overwhelmingly gracious to you and your family. In fact, to this day he refuses to publicly criticize you.

You have attacked Rush Limbaugh, who has never flown planes into towers or committed an evil act against America in anyway. The last time I checked, all he has done is hosted a political program where he criticizes your policies.

Now you are attacking Fox News with the same passion and ferocity that President George W. Bush used to topple the Taliban and Saddam Hussein.

This verbal carpet-bombing of people just for disagreeing with you must stop. Every minute you engage in the politics of personal destruction, you lose the ability to work with people that you may need to help with policies that could feed children, get kids off of drugs, improve schools, strengthen families, and keep America strong.

Afghanistan and Iraq need your attention, and you are distracted...and distracting...with nonsense.

Sir, Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee gave you a very courteous reminder that you must treat your political opponents with basic human dignity.

Mr. President, do you remember President George W. Bush ever attacking MSNBC, the New York Times, NPR, and a myriad of other news outlets that hated his guts because he was a conservative who existed and breathed air?

You have been treated with kid gloves while punching your opponents with gloves filled with rocks.

It is time for you and your administration to stop acting like verbal suicide bombers.” to “It is time for you and your administration to stop these attacks.

I have repeatedly stated that I thought you were a good person with some bad policy ideas. Yet now I am questioning how good a human being you are.

President George W. Bush is a good human being. He disagreed with people without personally trying to rip them to shreds. Perhaps this is due to his religious faith, or perhaps he has a discipline inside him that I know I do not always possess.

President Obama, American conservatives and Republicans are not the enemy. Bob Dole once said that Bill Clinton was not his enemy, but his opponent. You must get to this point with your political opponents.

The enemies of America are trying to kill us. We are in the middle of a global life and death struggle between civilization and barbarism. Republicans cannot help win the War on Terror without you. You are our leader. Yet you can't be a success without them either.

Sir, you need to start acting like an adult. The daily temper tantrums will backfire in the long run. To quote football coach Dennis Green, "Only babies get what they want all the time. Men have to do it the hard way. There's no room for crybabies."

Mr. President, your election will have been a very hollow victory if you fail to effectively govern. You will fail to effectively govern if you refuse to work with people that have good ideas different from yours.

Your soul is at stake sir. It is on the verge of being irreparably broken.

You told Iran that you would offer an outstretched hand if they unclenched their fist.

If you can reach out to Iran, than surely you can reach out to your fellow Americans. Some said your words of bipartisanship were phony and insincere. I am still willing to wait and see.

Get beyond the hate, reach out that bipartisan hand you promised, and let's get down to business.

J Street’s message is touted as “pro-Israel, pro-peace.” But “pro-Israel” seemed to be a very elastic concept at the conference. J Street’s executive director Jeremy Ben-Ami often seemed to be the most moderate voice in the room, with others stretching the pro-Israel designation to its limits.

One example of this was in the bloggers panel session. This session was described as separate from the conference. That strains credulity a bit - bloggers are so integral a part of the “progressive” movement that no conference like J Street’s could reasonably do without a blogger session.

As Michael Goldfarb at the Weekly Standard reported:

Though J Street tried to distance itself from the panel by describing it as an "unofficial" and "independent" event, the bloggers used one of the rooms otherwise reserved for conference events, a podium in the front had a J Street placard on it, and a J Street banner hung on the back wall of the room. Ben-Ami came in to "check up" on the panel, and a J Street flack ejected someone from the room at the behest of one of the panelists. If this wasn't an official event, I don't know what official means.

But this one was labeled “unofficial” and shunted off to a side room, probably because, not unexpectedly, it sabotaged Ben-Ami’s claim that J Street is pro-Israel.

Among the bloggers were: Helena Cobban, who in the past has defended Hamas and painted Israel in Nazi terms; Max Blumenthal, who made a lame and sour joke at Elie Wiesel’s expense to laughter from the J Street crowd; and Laila El-Haddad, of Gazamom.com, who said, "Whenever I hear two-state solution, I shake my head. I'm a one-stater.” Philip Weiss, another panel participant, said "there are many Zionists in this room, there are also some non-Zionists and anti-Zionists."

During the main conference sessions, there were also indications that at least some of the crowd was not in agreement with what the general Jewish community considers “pro-Israel”. Rabbi Eric Yoffie, head of the Union for Reform Judaism, was booed when he said Richard Goldstone should be "ashamed of himself" for agreeing to work for the U.N. Human Rights Council and probe alleged Israeli war crimes during Operation Cast Lead. J Street’s stance against U.S. sanctions on Iran is also out of step with the larger community.

Former Senator Chuck Hagel, who was named to a key intelligence advisory position in the Obama White House on Wednesday, was a keynote speaker at the conference Tuesday night. Hagel’s record on Israel has earned him bipartisan criticism and his comments to the J Streeters also raised some eyebrows. Tablet/Jewcy.com writer Allison Hoffman tweeted from the conference:

Hagel: Standing ovation, but Arafat died of cirrhosis not peace process - whoops? (via @jewcymagazine) (LINK)

@jewcymagazine Hagel was 2nd person to say Arafat died for peace - first speaker said "Arafat and Rabin paid w their lives" #jstconf09” (LINK)

As for its clout, J Street got on the wrong side of over a dozen members of the House and Senate, who withdrew their names from the conference host committee once they realized that J Street was not the kind of “pro-Israel” organization they or their constituents were used to. The group also got off to a bad start with Israel’s embassy in Washington. After Ambassador Michael Oren expressed concerns about J Street and turned down an invitation to speak, Ben-Ami published an “open letter” to the ambassador that gave J Street a splash of publicity but did nothing to move dialogue forward. And according to Jennifer Rubin at Commentary, the actual lobbying J Street conferees did this week was limited to asking lawmakers “to make a clear and unequivocal public statement in support of U.S. leadership in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process by the end of the year.” Hardly the kind of hard-hitting lobbying effort that J Street, with all its boisterous energy, led us to expect.

J Street claims to represent the many points of view about Israel on the far left of the spectrum. Can it unite the Zionists, non-Zionists, and anti-Zionists in the room with a cohesive message to rival AIPAC’s? It seems unlikely. The push-back from the most radical elements of its coalition is one difficulty. The distance between even J Street’s most “moderate” views and those of the vast majority of American Jews is another.

This week we all got a good look at J Street; now the folks on congressional offices on Capitol Hill will know who they’re talking to when J Street calls next time.

It was an exciting time to be traveling across America. The town hall phenomenon was just taking off, as were the spurious accusations of “Astroturf” hurled by the White House and certain Democrat leaders. The RJC members I met, many of whom had been to town hall meetings themselves, were outraged by Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s claim that people were arriving at town hall meetings “carrying swastikas.”

A few of the people who came to my book events had actually survived the horrors of Nazi Europe, or the bitter oppression of Soviet communism. They were deeply offended that Democrat leaders would cynically conflate legitimate opposition with fascism. If anything, the White House’s attempt to encourage Americans to inform on each other via “flag@whitehouse.gov” was reminiscent of police state tactics.

On August 31, I attended the town hall meeting held by my own representative, Democrat Jan Schakowsky, who said earlier this year that she wanted to “put the private insurance industry out of business.” It was clear that she intended to stack the meeting with demonstrators from such well-funded groups as Organizing For America (the old Obama campaign arm) and Health Care for America Now (HCAN), to create the false impression of broad local support for the “public option.”

I arrived at the meeting with a few friends and a video camera. We began shooting footage of protesters on different sides of the issue. To our amazement, we caught a leading HCAN organizer on tape as he instructed his followers how to drown out dissenting voices and block local residents from asking tough questions. We filmed another organizer telling her supporters how to sneak signs into the meeting.

I uploaded the two videos to YouTube that evening. Within hours, tens of thousands of people had seen the videos. FOX News picked up our footage and discussed it for several days. We had produced the “smoking gun” in the debate over which side was really using “Astroturf” tactics. For me, the event left a lasting impression: it helped me make up my mind to run for Congress. Our community deserves better!

Despite W.H. worries, Reid rolls dice

Democratic Senate aides expressed worries that Reid was going too far, too fast with a strategy that allows no room for error.

And Reid’s move Monday seemed at odds with President Barack Obama, who has expressed a preference for pursuing a compromise that could win a filibuster-proof majority and some bipartisan support. But by all accounts, Reid has neither at this point...

[T]he task ahead for Reid is steep, and at this point, even expert Senate vote-counters say there’s no way to know if Reid can pull it off.

[Reid's hopes were] met with deep skepticism in the Senate, where each senator holds the power to torpedo a bill.

Democratic aides speculated that Reid’s decision was motivated in part by electoral considerations.

"This is all about his home-state politics," said one senior Democratic Senate aide.

• Politico reports that some Democrats are worried that Americans expect that the bills benefits will flow upon enactment -- rather than three or four years down the road.  They've begun agitating to move forward the effective date for these provisions.  But the story doesn't really discuss the consequenses of such an adjustment on the bill's cost.

• The Hill reports that unions, a critical Democrat interest group constituency, are not yet sold on the "opt-out" and remain dead-set against a key revenue-raising provision - the levying of a tax on high-value employer based plans.  Even though Reid's draft bill reportedly gives some ground on the latter point,  public statements yesterday by union honcho Richard Trumka made it clear his crowd was far from satisfied.

• And last week, Reid tried and failed to smooth the way for passage of Obamacare by passing a bill that would simultaneously lock in the American Medical Association's support for the measure while making an end-run around cost concerns. 

In the wake of Reid's failure to pass the "doc fix" -- his leadership in question and his grip on his very seat loosening -- Harry Reid is placing a heavy bet on his leadership skills. Many of the chips belong to the President and other Democrats. For them, the outcome of the wager will be politically consequential.

As for the rest of us - we've got nothing much at stake - just our health.

UPDATE: Senator Chuck Schumer - who plainly wants the credit for leading the Leader to the public-option view - says it's "not a gamble."

The resulting behavior from those instinctual needs has developed a natural hierarchy in society that can be plotted on a bell curve - it’s remarkable how, as unscientific as it might be in this situation, it provides an effective framework for analysis. So indulge me for a moment as I try to show how capitalism trumps socialism every time. We plot out society, more specifically the work force, with a top 20% (job creators), middle 60% (workers) and bottom 20% (the under or unemployed).

The American “dream” has always been about wealth creation and being in the top 20%. And that’s what drives innovation and the engine of a productive economy – everyone working for that dream. I believe socialism manages to emasculate society in aiming for the American “dream”. The ensuing tax structure that must be deployed to support socialistic policies eventually overwhelms the taxpayers and removes all motivation to work hard and build wealth. When that happens, the system eventually backfires and all hopes of taking care of those in need goes right out the window because it is the act of striving towards wealth that pushes innovation, creates jobs, drives charitable giving and volunteerism, which is the foundation for a healthy society.

Our governmental framework and policies should be built to provide for the American “dream”. I’m not trying to say that the intended goals of some of our government programs, like Social Security or Medicare, aren’t laudable, it’s just that they were never designed properly for sustainability. The irony of the left condemning capitalism as the evil producer of Ponzi schemes is thick considering Social Security and Medicare are the biggest Ponzi schemes ever created – BY THE GOVERNMENT.

Keep the concept of taking care of our fellow man at the local level and voluntary. Not only does it yield greater efficiencies and contextually appropriate services, it keeps the “redistribution of wealth” in its rightful place – voluntary and targeted based on individual interest (some people like to give to the homeless, some to guide dog programs). Unwinding or dramatically restructuring some of our social services in our country is going to be tremendously complex and politically unpopular. But we live in a country that continuously leads the world in creativity – let’s use our American ingenuity to dissect the problems and fix them, rather than adding more layers of complexity (i.e. nationalized health insurance).

Capitalism is not perfect – the system can be penetrated by greed. But the good outweighs the bad. It breeds the dream of wealth – which drives the economic engine.It breeds volunteerism – people know it’s up to them to support their fellow man, not government. It breeds charitable giving – evidenced by the non-profit industry being the second largest industry in America. And it breeds dreams around the world – which is why everyone still wants to come to America or be like America because the opportunities are limitless. Capitalism, at its core, is founded on the principles of human nature and Darwinian theory. Human nature has been around a lot longer than capitalism or socialism and perhaps we should step back and revisit what drives human behavior and emotion.

The Washington Post, not usually warm to Republicans, called Aaron:

...a bright young combat veteran of the war in Iraq [who] takes a broader regional view of [transportation issues].

A Washington Post endorsement carries weight in the Northern Virginia suburbs, where Ringel's district lies.

We are very proud to see young Jewish Republicans like Aaron Ringel leading the GOP resurgence.

To learn more about Aaron, visit his web site.

The new group Keep America Safe intends to question the “radical” foreign policy of the Obama administration, which it claims is undermining the nation’s security.

Founded by former deputy assistant Secretary of State Liz Cheney, Weekly Standard editor William Kristol and the outspoken sister of an American Airlines pilot killed on September 11, Debra Burlingame, KAS intends to “provide information for concerned Americans about critical national security issues.”

And provide information it does.  Go to the website and you’ll find plenty to read about the War on Terror (if we can still call it that!), CIA interrogations, Gitmo, human rights and democracy, and more.

Of course there has been speculation as to whether or not this might be a launching pad for Liz Cheney’s political career….

Hmmm…not a bad idea at all.

Also, as a new chapter leader, I am so encouraged to realize how many Republican Jews there are. My goal is for conservative (politically speaking) Jews to be comfortable speaking out. I want to be a modern-day Herzl for the Jews of East Tennessee. As a chapter leader, I will always defend Republican Jews and make sure they know that I have their back.

Onward we roll to November 2010 and beyond!

First, the decision compromised a key part of our missile defense plans. The Administration has claimed that the Iranian nuclear program is moving more slowly than expected and that sea based alternatives will be available in time to deal with the threat. These are highly unlikely assumptions: the recently revealed existence of a secret Iranian nuclear facility undercuts that notion. Also, the German intelligence service, for example, believes that Iran will have a nuclear weapon within six months. But even if there were a 75% chance that the Administration is correct, that still would leave a one in four chance that abandoning the ground based missile sites would make Europe vulnerable to a ballistic missile.

What is at stake here is the risk of thermonuclear attack. If such a threat from Iran is real, why deliberately slow down our defensive preparations? If it’s not real, why build the more expensive sea based alternative to deal with it?

Second, the decision sends the wrong message to both friend and enemy. Its purpose was admittedly to mollify Russia, but not because the Russians are actually afraid; the sites pose no threat to them. Russia’s real objection was the symbolism of having former Warsaw pact countries so firmly and irreversibly in the Western camp. Similarly, the value of the sites for the Poles and Czechs was about both the symbolism of a U.S. commitment to their sovereignty as well as actual missile defense from Iranian missiles. Abandoning the sites send the unmistakable message that the countries of Eastern Europe are on their own in dealing with Russia. The message will not be lost on the nations of the Western Pacific, which must deal with growing Chinese power.

The decision also suggests to us, and will suggest to the world, that the Obama Administration suffers from a fundamental naïveté when it comes to Russia. The Russians are notoriously tough bargainers. Even assuming it made sense to put the missile sites on the bargaining table, what did we get for such a huge concession?  A few days after the announcement the Russians hinted at tougher Iranian sanctions. But that glimmer of hope already seems to have faded.

Has Russia reset its aggressive posture towards its neighbors, its energy blackmail of Europe, its coddling of Iran, or its suppression of democracy within its own borders?

Remember Russia actually invaded one of its neighbors less than a year ago. And no one seems to talk about it, but the Russians still have troops in Georgia. In fact, this week they signed a deal to establish military bases in the Abkhazia and South Ossetia regions of Georgia, which Russia has provocatively recognized as independent states. Is anyone in the Obama Administration paying attention to what happens in Georgia? Did anyone notice that yesterday President Putin reacted to our decision not by offering concessions of his own but by making yet further demands: that the United States "remove all restrictions on the transfer of high technology to Russia" and "widen the membership of the World Trade Organisation to (include) Russia, Kazakhstan and Belarus"?

In light of Russia’s aggressive actions, it’s remarkable that the U.S. has been manipulated into treating the missile defense issue as the biggest irritant in our bilateral relationship. After all, there can be no moral equivalence between a Western defensive system and Russia’s actual offensive actions, military and economic. Why have we allowed the missile defense issue to dominate the conversation?

The announcement obviously has implications far beyond Eastern Europe. It goes without saying that the decision will embolden Iran and give Israel further reason for concern about America’s commitment to its existence. But more than that, America’s friends will doubt our commitments, mistrust our word, and question the resolution of this President.

The Administration simply must understand how this looks to the world. It looks like he is more interested in appeasing our adversaries than standing by our friends. What does this decision imply, for example, for a country like Colombia, a robust ally of the U.S. in a region where the Administration similarly is seeking to improve relations with hostile regimes?

To his credit, Barack Obama has been a popular figure around the world, and has so far been able to improve America’s image in many places. The recent news that he had won the Nobel Peace Prize demonstrates that the President’s approach has won him many friends and admirers in European circles. But in foreign policy, the goal isn’t just to get other countries to like us; it’s to get their governments to respect and work with us on shared priorities. Perhaps the Obama Administration has orchestrated some undisclosed, enforceable quid pro quo whereby the Russians will now stop abetting the Iranians and actually get serious about stopping their nuclear progress. But so far there are no signs of that happening. The signs now are that the United States has suffered an unmitigated defeat that will imperil our security and our interests not just in Eastern Europe but around the world.

Why did we do this to ourselves?

During the interview Specter proved that he is willing to do and say anything to stay in office. He praised the need for a "robust" public option while decrying "profits and bonuses." He called the GOP a "party of obstructionism" and pointed to the “absence of a Republican [healthcare] plan.” You can judge for yourself as to whether these are Specter’s long held and principled views or just simply part of his campaign to cling to power and save his own political hide in next year’s election.

The irony is that Specter was entirely comfortable calling himself a Republican when the Republican majority abandoned their core values and principles by supporting huge increases in government spending, which were in part responsible for electoral losses in 2006 and 2008. But he does have a point that Congressional Republicans have failed to clearly articulate what health care reform measures they support when in fact Republicans do have common sense solutions. Being labeled by the media as the “the party of NO” is one thing. But it should serve as a wake-up call when it becomes a talking point out of the mouth of someone as pliant as Arlen Specter.

While it remains critical for the GOP to stand firmly against a government takeover of our health care system, we have a much greater responsibility if we want to regain the trust of the American people. In order to succeed, Republicans must reclaim the position as the party of limited government and personal responsibility. On the key issues of economic recovery, health care reform and energy, the GOP must establish an agenda based on our conservative principles and explain to the American people why our solutions are better for economic prosperity and security.

In 2010, the GOP cannot simply rely on the campaign slogan of "We were bad. They are worse. Vote Republican." With Republicans poised to gain seats - and possibly regain control of Congress - the time has arrived for Congressional leaders to create a plan and define for the public what it means to be a Republican. While I am sure that the bigger offices and better parking spaces in the Capitol have their merits, hopefully experience has taught us that to reclaim the majority it is best we not abandon our principles in the process or upon arrival.

PERMALINK  

Over the space of just a few days, nearly a dozen members of the U.S. House and Senate, including Sen. Chuck Schumer and the few Republican Senators originally on the list, have pulled their names from the host committee.

On October 15, Michael Goldfarb wrote that Rep. Mike Castle (R-DE) had asked that his name be removed from the host committee of the upcoming J Street forum:

When I called Castle's office, they confirmed that they had asked for Castle's name to be removed from the list. I was also told that Castle was "totally unaware" that J Street had been using his name on their materials and that the decision to attach his name to the host committee was made at the "staff level."

"Someone was asked," and because J Street billed itself as a "pro-Israel" organization, a Castle staffer "just said, oh sure, of course." The Castle aide I spoke with was surprised to learn that one of the speakers at the J Street conference had blamed Israel for the 9/11 attacks in the days that followed.

So the question is how many other members of the host committee are "totally unaware" that they've lent their names to J Street's conference? How many other offices made this decision at the "staff level," totally unaware that the group billing itself as pro-Israel was actually pro-engagement with Hamas and anti-sanctions on Iran? The number is likely substantial, and the number of Congressmen who distance themselves from this conference is, I'd bet, likely to grow.

Goldstein’s prediction has come true. To date, the following members, Republicans and Democrats, have pulled out of the conference:

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY)
Rep. Mike Ross (D-AR-4)
Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS)
Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR)
Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX)
Rep. Leonard Boswell (D-IA-3)
Rep. John Salazar (D-CO-3)
Rep. Ed Towns (D-NY-10)
Rep. Howard Coble (R-NC-6)

Two Republicans, Reps. Charles Boustany (R-LA-7) and Brian Bilbray (R-CA-50), are still listed.

[UPDATE: Tuesday evening, Jennifer Rubin reported that Rep. Bilbray has asked that his name be removed from the host committee list.]

Pres. Obama’s national security advisor, Jim Jones, has accepted an invitation to participate.

Once Jones was confirmed, J Street seems to have dropped some of the more “controversial” presenters from their agenda, including “poet” Josh Healey, who likened Gaza to Auschwitz. Also dropped, Healey’s fellow panelists in a session on "culture as a tool for change" Kevin Coval and Tracy Soren.

Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren will not attend. The Israeli embassy said that a lower-level member of the embassy staff will be sent to watch and report on the event.

Tuesday afternoon, Politico reported that a scheduled keynote speaker, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry, would not appear at the conference. Kerry’s office said the Senator had turned down the invitation “weeks ago” due to a prior commitment, but he remained listed on J-Street’s web site (marked as invited but not confirmed) until Tuesday.

Learn more about J Street here.

One mythical block from K Street, a new politically toxic organization is forming in Washington, DC.  The Group is called J-Street.  They are as helpful for Jewish interests in America and worldwide as Benedict Arnold was for America itself.

In the Jewish community, there was Groucho Marx, who once famously stated that he "would never belong to a club that would have me as a member."

Yet Groucho was not self-hating. He was mocking the anti-Semitism of his day, and was rejecting the idea of joining an anti-Semitic club. He was standing up for his people.

J-Street does not stand up for or stand for anything remotely positive for Jews. Now to make matters worse, these people are using their constitutional right to assemble to hold a conference. Worst of all is that Jewish politicians are giving this organization legitimacy. 

Dianne Feinstein, Al Franken, Russ Feingold, Henry Waxman, Bernie Sanders, and Adam Schiff are among them.

For those liberal Jews that find my sentiments harsh, they should spend less time worrying about a Republican Jew typing on a keyboard and more time worrying over an anti-Israel organization getting its hooks into an eager White House.

For those not convinced, the agenda of J-Street is as subtle as a homicide bomber, and on an emotional level, just as destructive.

Their own website is all the evidence one needs.

"Israel's settlements in the occupied territories have, for over forty years, been an obstacle to peace."

"J Street supports President Obama's call for an immediate and total freeze of settlement construction."

"It is important to note that J Street supports the concept of a security barrier as an important element of Israel's defense, but believes that the barrier must be located along an internationally recognized border."

"J Street believes that the immediate imposition of harsher sanctions on Iran would be counterproductive."

"We are strongly opposed to any consideration at this time of the use of military force by Israel or the United States to attack Iran's nuclear infrastructure."

Nowhere on this dreadful website is there any mention of anything that Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, or any other enemies of Israel have to do.  J-street preaches a balanced approach to the Middle East, but places all the responsibility on Israel.

In addition to praising multi-lateralism and diplomacy, a new nonsensical phrase has entered the liberal lexicon thanks to J-Street. "Strategic Patience" is a fancy way of doing nothing and praying that baddy meanies decide to become goodie niceys.

Has anybody at J-Street listened to Armageddonijad? The guy wants to wipe Israel off of the map, not sit at the campfire with Jews, make S’mores, and sing about what they would do if they had a hammer.

Like most liberal Jews, J-Street loves to attack "Neocons" and other conservatives as bellicose.

Well J-Street and liberal Jews everywhere need to answer some tough questions right now, or forever be denied the right to be taken seriously.

What specific steps must the enemies of Israel take in the name of peace?

Why should we make agreements with rogue leaders when they break every agreement they sign?

If we make an agreement with them, how can we enforce it?

What happens if they break the agreement?

Given that Israel has made concessions in the past, why not make any further Israeli actions contingent on the cessation of terror, as specified in the Road Map?

Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon and Gaza led to more terror. Why would any further withdrawals yield a different result?

If liberals become conservatives after getting mugged, why have they not reacted upon their Jewish brethren getting bombed, shot at, and murdered indiscriminately? How many Jews have to be killed by Islamofacist enemies of freedom and liberty before enough is enough?

On October 25th through the 28th, a conference dedicated to the destruction of Israel will take place.

It will call itself a "Pro-Israel, Pro-Peace" event, but as we learned in "Hamlet," for some people, "there is no right and wrong. Only thinking makes it so."

Jews have given enough, voluntarily through hope and involuntarily through innocent and unwanted bloodshed.

These values inspired me to serve my country by enlisting in the U.S. Marine Corps Reserves. I served eight years as a Marine Intelligence Specialist, including two tours in Al Anbar Province, Iraq. These values were also the inspiration that led me to serve my community, first as a City Councilman, and now as a member of the Ohio House of Representatives. 

In 2006, I won my first grassroots campaign for State Representative after knocking on 19,679 doors and wearing out three pairs of shoes. As a result of my relationship with my local RJC chapter and RJC staff and leaders around the nation, I was able to meet countless volunteers, contributors, supporters and friends. Because of these resources, I was better enabled to compete and focus on what I believe all candidates should do, listen to the people they are seeking to represent. 

As a freshman legislator, I worked with state treasurers, legislators and fiscal officers from across the nation in promoting terror-free investment initiatives that require state pension funds to divest from companies doing business with terrorist sponsoring nations, such as Iran.

Last year I had the distinct pleasure of speaking at the annual dinner of the California RJC at the Reagan Library in Simi Valley. Once again, RJC provided a great forum for me to meet like minded individuals who are concerned about the direction of their communities and country.  I am continually encouraged and uplifted whenever I have the opportunity to speak with RJC members. In November of last year I was re-elected receiving 71% of the vote in a district that has a 2:1 Democrat to Republican ratio, and this was surely with the help of RJC members nationwide.

If there is one thing that I have learned throughout my journey in public service, it is the importance of listening to the people you represent. I dedicated a large amount of my time as a City Councilman and as a State Representative walking door-to-door listening to the concerns of my constituents.  I am continuing this approach as I travel throughout the state of Ohio as part of my current campaign for State Treasurer. In fact, visitors to my website, www.joshmandel.com, are able to track my progress of mileage logged on my car.  I recently surpassed 52,000 miles traveled.

It is no secret that Ohio is a highly competitive and closely watched political battleground. Ohio, like most states in the country, is facing severe financial hardship and is looking for leadership from its public officials. Unfortunately, Ohio’s current leadership has sat idly by as our credit rating dropped and jobs left the state.  I am running for Treasurer to bring fresh energy, integrity and fiscal conservatism to Ohio government. I will combine the lessons from my grandparents and the principles instilled in me by the Marines to refocus the State Treasurer's office on its most important mission - protecting the hard-earned dollars of our citizens.

Moving forward, I will continue to rely upon my friends and supporters I have met through RJC. The RJC has proven itself to be an important player both in National and local politics and I am grateful for their efforts. The organization remains successful and influential because of its unapologetic reliance on conservative ideals and family values. I am a proud member of the RJC and I believe Republicans from all over the country will be successful, in no small part, because of its efforts.

However, this all may soon change.

On September 9, the United States Supreme Court heard for the second time the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which has the potential to drastically alter the political landscape by either weakening or discarding entirely the prohibition on corporate spending in federal elections.

The case involves a movie called Hillary: The Movie, a 2008 documentary produced by Citizens United, a non-profit organization. The movie took a largely critical view of then-Senator Hillary Clinton and was released around the time of her Presidential bid. As a result of the film’s content, a federal court in Washington ruled that the movie was an “electioneering communication,” in essence a long campaign advertisement against Hillary Clinton. As such, the lower court ruled that the movie fell under McCain-Feingold and Citizens United faced numerous restrictions on how and where the movie could be shown and also how the movie could be advertised.

Citizens United appealed, and in March of this year the United States Supreme Court heard oral argument.  However, rather than deciding the narrow issue of whether Hillary: The Movie fell under McCain-Feingold, the Court asked the parties to brief the broader issue of whether the Court should overturn the 1990 case of Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, which held that the federal government has a compelling state interest in restricting political spending by corporations in federal elections. The Court also asked to review the constitutionality of certain aspects of McCain-Feingold.

Oral argument was heard last month, and a decision is expected in the next several weeks. However, a majority of the Court – Justices Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Kennedy and Thomas – have indicated concern about how current campaign finance laws negatively impact free speech rights. Most experts agree the Court at a minimum will rule that movies such as Citizens United’s Hillary: The Movie are not “electioneering communications” under federal law. What remains to be seen is whether the Court decides the case on that narrow issue or uses the case to upend the current campaign finance system by ruling that corporate contributions are entitled under the Constitution to full free speech protections.  Stay tuned!

In future posts I plan to discuss upcoming RJC events and programs or tell you about RJC events that recently took place. However, for this blog entry I want to discuss a question that as RJC Grassroots Director I am asked frequently. The question is, “What is the #1 goal of the RJC Grassroots?” To me this question has a simple answer: The #1 goal of the RJC Grassroots is to create a place, whether at chapter events, on Facebook or at RJCHQ.org where 100% of the Jewish Republicans feel comfortable calling it home. If we can succeed in doing this, we can accomplish all of our other goals, from changing Jewish voting patterns to getting more Jewish Republicans elected to higher office to helping the Republican party grow. You can fill in the blank on your long term goal - all that can be done if we get all of the existing Jewish Republicans involved in the RJC.

So I want to leave you with one action item and that is to invite one family member or friend to come to an RJC event in your community or go to our website at RJCHQ.org and sign up to get on our email list. We recently introduced a new blog feature on our site, and I would also encourage you to put your thoughts to paper and submit an entry. The time for action is now!

The Official RJC Blog is where RJC staff, our chapter leaders, and our members will comment on what’s new in the news and at the RJC so you can stay current on timely issues of interest. Posts will include information about the RJC, breaking news that we think will be of interest to you, and information about our upcoming events, meetings, and current projects.

So be sure to check back here often at our official blog, and also sample the opinions and analysis in the Guest Blog. Let us know what you think and please, join the conversation! Comments and suggestions can be emailed to Blog@RJCHQ.org.

In an effort to expand that debate here on the RJC web site, we have created the Guest Blog to showcase some of the terrific conservative thinkers and writers out there. We’re delighted to add to our web site thoughtful and insightful posts from a wide group of writers, including many famous names, as well as you, our members and visitors.

We invite you to be part of the conversation, and to share your thoughts with us as a guest blogger, too. You can learn more about being a guest blogger here.

This year we have a great deal to talk about: the economy, job creation, health care reform, U.S.-Israel relations, the threat of a nuclear Iran, the challenges facing U.S. policy with regard to China, Russia, Iraq, and Afghanistan, among many other issues. In addition, there are two off-year elections next month that may herald big opportunities for Republicans in 2010 and 2012.

If you want the latest news and analysis on domestic policy, foreign policy, electoral news, and legislative issues, you’ve come to the right place.

Don’t forget to keep up with all the news from inside the RJC on our official blog, and please share your comments and suggestions with us via email to Blog@RJCHQ.org.

The Nobel Prize web site says the awards recognize "extraordinary achievements," but the Obama citation refers only to his "extraordinary efforts," a dramatic contrast. Accordingly, President Obama was gracious and humble in his remarks after the award, but he would have done better to decline the award entirely, and invite consideration only after he fashioned a real record of achievement.

...There is, of course, nothing wrong with encouraging hope and the possibility of future success. But it is otherworldly and in fact dangerous in national security matters to confuse emotions with reality. In fact, however, these vacuous aspirational justifications for giving the Nobel to Obama simply obscure the real ideological motivation behind the award: the Norwegian committee is promoting a cause, its cause. They seek to promote and encourage a particular kind of American, one who finds favor with European Leftists, who constantly ask, paraphrasing Rex Harrison’s musical query in "My Fair Lady": "why can’t Americans . . . be more like us?"

In 2002, for example, in selecting Jimmy Carter, the then-chairman of the Nobel Peace Prize committee said the award was intended as "a kick in the leg" to President Bush, which should hardly be a qualification, let alone a public justification. Then, in 2007, former Vice President Al Gore’s selection for his global-warming work was widely seen as criticism of Bush administration environmental policy. Over the last several decades, moreover, the Nobel has repeatedly honored UN agencies or personnel, rewards increasing in inverse proportion to the organization’s effectiveness.

This year, one Nobel Committee member, Aagot Valle, of Norway’s Socialist Left party, said we should view the selection as "support and a commitment for Obama." Indeed. Unable to vote in America’s 2008 presidential election, the Nobel Committee apparently decided to vote this year, making their ideological perspective unmistakable.

Their message really is quite straightforward: "Jimmy Carter in 2002, Al Gore in 2007 and now Barack Obama. Do you Americans get the point yet?" It is precisely the preachiness and attitude of moral superiority inherent in these awards that many Americans find offensive, and which may, ironically, leave President Obama in a more difficult position here and abroad than before the award.

The question of whether America is in decline cannot be answered yes or no. There is no yes or no. Both answers are wrong, because the assumption that somehow there exists some predetermined inevitable trajectory, the result of uncontrollable external forces, is wrong. Nothing is inevitable. Nothing is written. For America today, decline is not a condition. Decline is a choice. Two decades into the unipolar world that came about with the fall of the Soviet Union, America is in the position of deciding whether to abdicate or retain its dominance. Decline--or continued ascendancy--is in our hands.